Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o' Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — IDENTITY CARDS (REPLACEMENT)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Health under what authority a fee of 1s. is charged to the public for the replacement of a lost or destroyed identity card; and under what authority a charge of 6d. is made for the replacement of a defaced but decipherable identity card.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): These fees are charged under the authority of Section 6 of the National Registration Act.

Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend think it right that, as all things have an end, the public should have to pay for the replacement of a document which they do not particularly want?

Captain Crookshank: And which is no use anyhow?

Mr. Key: If a document is essential and is lost, it must be replaced.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What is the position if a person has no money at all? Does he lose his identity?

Mr. Key: In such cases, allowances would be made.

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Health if the charge of 6d. for replacing old and defaced identity cards has now ceased.

Mr. Key: No, Sir, but the fee is waived if the replacement is occasioned by fair

wear and tear and the card is still decipherable.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that there are a number of cases where persons have refused to pay the 6d., and in those cases, the identity cards have been issued?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOWDEN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INSTITUTION

Mr. Glossop: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the copy sent to him of a verbatim report of a public meeting held in the Shire Hall, Howden, on 14th June, to protest against the closure of the Howden Public Assistance Institution; and what action he has taken as a result of his meeting.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. My right, hon. Friend has ascertained that another copy of the report has reached the county council and will be considered at their next meeting. He proposes to await the result. Meanwhile the institution will remain open.

Mr. Glossop: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how many persons spoke at this meeting; how many spoke in favour of the resolution; and how many were speaking on behalf of organisations such as the W.V.S., the local Labour Party, and working men's clubs?

Mr. Key: No, Sir; I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Mass Radiography

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Health when the Nottinghamshire County Council will be supplied with a mass radiography plant.

Mr. Key: I would remind the hon. Member of my right hon. Friend's general reply to him of 6th June last. My right hon. Friend cannot say at what dates each new unit becoming available will be allocated, but he will keep this county well in mind.

Mr. Shephard: Are these plants allocated on a population basis? If so, as this county has a population of over half a million, it should be entitled to early consideration.

Mr. Key: That will be a material factor in giving consideration to the allocation.

Mr. Beechman: Is it intended to issue them in each county?

Mr. Key: It is intended to issue them to give a general service to the country as a whole as soon as they become available.

Cancer

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health how many new discoveries have been made for the treatment of cancer in the last 10 years as the result of experiments on living animals.

Mr. Key: Information of this kind is not obtainable.

Mr. Freeman: Is it not a fact that new discoveries for the cure of cancer, arising from experiments on animals, have been announced publicly almost every few months during the last ten years and in view of the fact that deaths from cancer have steadily increased every year during the last 40 years, will my hon. Friend recommend other methods of investigation than experimenting on living animals to cure this disease?

Mr. Key: Undoubtedly other methods should also be followed, but that does not mean that this method does not result in information which is valuable.

Nurses

Mr. Attewell: asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the shortage of nursing staff at the Leicestershire P.A.C. infirmaries and the declaration by the coroner at an inquiry on the death of a person unable to obtain admission to the infirmary that this was the third similar case on which he had conducted an inquiry; and what action he proposes to take to overcome this nursing shortage in the immediate future.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware that, owing to the shortage of nursing staff, public assistance institutions in Leicestershire are not able at present to admit all the cases needing nursing care, and his attention has been called to a distressing case of this kind at Market Harborough. The Minister of Labour and my right hon. Friend are doing all that is possible to help by publicity and otherwise. Salary scales have been much improved, and a code of working conditions laid down. The setting up of more assistant nurse training schools is

being actively encouraged. But the situation is difficult, particular in hospitals for the chronic sick.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Saint Faiths and Aylsham

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused by his refusal to approve the granting of licences to private builders in 23 out of 25 cases recently submitted to him by the Saint Faiths and Aylsham Rural District Council; and if he is prepared to give fresh consideration to this matter, in view of the shortage of houses in the rural areas of Norfolk.

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue building licences to private persons in the St. Faiths and Aylsham district of Norfolk, in cases where land has already been acquired, and some cases where building contracts have been entered into, in accordance with representations made to his regional office at Cambridge by the St. Faiths and Aylsham Rural District Council.

Mr. Key: The St. Faiths and Aylsham Rural District Council had issued 121 licences to private builders by the end of May; and effort must now be concentrated on the building of houses to let for those in greatest need. My right hon. Friend is not, therefore, prepared to agree that further licences should be issued for the time being, though there may be exceptional cases. The council have made a good start with their own building programme and have more land available; and the best way for private builders to assist in overcoming the housing shortage in this area is for them to build houses for the council, in appropriate cases under the terms of Circular 92/46, of which I am sending each of the hon. Members a copy.

Mr. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that each of these cases submitted by the St. Faiths and Aylsham Council show the most desperate urgency and need? Is he further aware that at the same time that authority was refused permission for these houses to be built, at the other end of my constituency authority was given by another Department for the building of a grandstand at a greyhound racing track?

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the Minister also aware that very similar and strong complaints come from the Orpington area?

Mr. Key: There are a number of councils who have exceeded the number of private licences in comparison with the erection of houses to let, which makes it essential, in order that the accommodation may be distributed according to need, to restrict houses for sale in order that houses to let may be built.

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health how soon he anticipates being able to authorise the Saint Faiths and Aylsham Rural District Council to issue a building licence in favour of Corporal C. Land, who wishes to build a house for his own occupation at Taverham, Norfolk.

Mr. Key: I understand that the application of Corporal Land will be considered by the council today. If the council think that the case is one in which a licence should be issued, they will so inform my right hon. Friend, but as I have already indicated in replying to an earlier question put by the hon. Member, this is a district in which effort must be concentrated on the building of houses by the local authority.

Mr. Medlicott: In such cases where the hon. Gentleman prevents the building of houses by this means, can we be assured that he is doing all that is possible to ensure that some other houses are erected in their place?

Mr. Key: The reason for the non-issue of licences is in order that the available labour and material may be used for the building of houses to let.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Are the hon. Gentleman, and his right hon. Friend, certain that these houses to let will be occupied by agricultural workers, which the others would have been?

Mr. Key: Not necessarily by agricultural workers.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he thinks his Department is really treating local authorities fairly when he gives them authority to grant licences to build houses and then when they decide, after reviewing all the facts, to grant licences, his Department revokes them?

Mr. Key: As with other organisations, there are some local authorities who do not use their powers with due discretion. What we have asked them to do is to use their licensing powers in conformity with their own building programme, so that their own building programme for houses to let is not injured by their licensing for other purposes.

Farm Cottages, Flaxton

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that his decision to refuse a licence for the building of two farm workers' cottages at Hop Grove Farm, Malton Road, York, will have a serious effect on food production in this area; whether he is aware that plans for these houses have received the approval of the Flaxton Rural District Council as the planning authority for the area; and whether, in view of these facts and the present food shortage, he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Key: I am making further inquiries about this case and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Minister had refused this licence, that there are no cottages on this farm, and the nearest cottage proposed to be built by a local authority is two miles away? This policy is repelling agricultural workers from agriculture.

Mr. Key: It is in order to be made familiar with all the particulars of this case that I am having the inquiries made.

Homeless Families, London

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health, how many families are at present being accommodated in rest centres, air-raid shelters, public institutions and the like by local authorities in the Metropolitan Police district; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the eviction of families against whom court orders for possession have been issued, in cases where the local authorities have no accommodation available.

Mr. Key: The figures my right hon. Friend has are for rest centres and halfway houses in the London Civil Defence Region. In that area there were at the end of June 719 families so accommodated. Of this number 276 were in the County of London. I understand that only most exceptionally are homeless


families accommodated in a public institution. In such cases every effort is made to transfer them to other accommodation immediately. It would not be proper for my right hon. Friend to attempt to prevent the eviction of families against whom court orders for possession have been issued. All he can do is to make arrangements for their accommodation in common with other people needing homes.

Mr. Sparks: Is my hon. Friend aware that a view prevails in the county courts that the local authorities are in a position to rehouse families dispossessed by court orders, and will he take some step to correct that erroneous view?

Mr. Key: I attempted to do that in this House on Tuesday night by saying that it must not be taken that people who are evicted have priority over other applicants for housing by local authorities.

Site, Shropshire (Agricultural Land)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the six acres of land being acquired for building purposes from Mr. T. Williams, Chapel House Farm, Minsterley, Salop, constitutes 100 per cent. agricultural land producing animal feeding-stuffs and corn; and if he will, before coming to a final decision in the matter, make sure that no other possible site exists beyond the alternative already rejected.

Mr. Key: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in his answer to the hon. Member's Question of 8th July, due consideration was given to agricultural interests before the use of this site was approved for housing. With regard to the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend cannot add to his answer of 4th July. He gave careful consideration to the representations of Mr. Williams before he decided to confirm the compulsory purchase order and he has no power to modify this decision.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the considerable amount of agricultural land which is being used for the purpose of housing, would' the Minister consider with his colleague the question of taking over all the land and allocating some part to agriculture and the rest to housing?

Congleton

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the completion of the 50 Tarran temporary houses at Congleton is nine months late; and when will these houses be ready for occupation.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. Completion of the houses is held up owing to the shortage of certain fittings. Every effort is being made to expedite production of these fittings, and I hope that these houses will be available for occupation very shortly.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nearly all these houses could be occupied if they were painted inside and had their electrical fittings? Will he please bring a little more coordination into these matters?

Mr. Key: I have already said that it is due to the shortage of fittings and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, electrical fittings are one of the things in short supply.

Building Licences, Malvern

Major Conant: asked the Minister of Health on what grounds he has instructed the Malvern Urban District Council to issue no further building licences to private persons without his approval; and whether his approval will be given in the case of builders who already have building materials available.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend has asked the Malvern Urban District Council not to issue further building licences without his consent because of the prevailing shortage of labour and materials and the need for concentrating them on houses to let to those in greatest need. The council have started a good programme of their own which they can increase, and my right hon. Friend is anxious that their building should not be prejudiced. It is open to any builder with materials available to offer to build for the local authority, either in reply to advertisements for tenders or on the lines laid down in Circular 92/46, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Major Conant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that less than a month ago the Minister informed me that he was entirely satisfied with the policy of this council in the issue of licences, and why has his policy


changed? If I give him the names of builders serving in the Forces, will he undertake to have them released at once?

Mr. Key: I will undertake, if names are submitted, to take the necessary steps to deal with them in the normal way.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that the Colwall area, which comes under the Malvern Rural District Council, has not yet started to build one house, in spite of the fact that people are living in overcrowded conditions in that area?

Mr. Key: I have no jurisdiction over the council. The constituents in the area must deal with them.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Is it not a fact that the necessity for tendering by small builders who are not equipped for, or practised in, tendering imposes a considerable delay in the housing programme of this country?

Mr. Key: It is for that reason we have issued Circular 92 / 46 and have adopted the method of allowing the small builders to build without the necessity of tendering in the normal way.

Mr. Walker-Smith: While appreciating that the Minister has taken the advice offered to him to set up that system, is it not the fact that very little progress has so far been made with this excellent idea which was recommended to the Minister?

Mr. Key: It may be that progress is not as great as we should desire but, as the matter becomes known to the smaller builders, we feel certain that they will take advantage of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the Minister of Health whether it is open to a county borough to make representation to the Local Government Boundary Commission for the absorbing of an adjoining non-county borough and whether the commission is empowered to make such a recommendation.

Mr. Key: The reply to both parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Prescott: Is it not the usual practice for official consultations to take place between local authorities before any decision

is reached, or before any representation is made to the Commission? In particular, is the Minister aware that Blackburn Corporation expressed their desire and intention to incorporate the neighbouring borough of Darwen without any official consultation taking place?

Mr. Key: That is a matter of courtesy between local authorities, over which we have no jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTAL TOWNS (INCREASED TRADERS' LOANS)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health whether the scheme for loans to small traders in certain coastal holiday resorts on the south and east coasts is to continue in operation; and if he will consider increasing the maximum amount of the loans permissible.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. The Government have decided to extend the operation of this scheme for another year and to increase the maximum amount of the loans to£500 to any one trader.

Mr. Evans: While expressing great gratification at the Minister's answer, may I ask if the men who have availed themselves of the previous opportunity of borrowing up to £150 under the old scheme, will be eligible to extend their loans up to£500 under this scheme?

Mr. Key: I cannot say positively whether that is the case, but I will see that due consideration is given to it.

Mr. William Teeling: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for this concession, for which the Defence Areas Committee was asking for nearly two years, may ask if he is aware that it was for the whole defence areas, not only for a few seaside resorts? Can he also say whether this £500 is now being granted because it looks as if there arc to be more goods purchasable with the money? That is why it was held back before.

Mr. Key: That may be one of the reasons, but the other reasons were that the extra money was found to be necessary in the circumstances.

Mr. Beechman: Does this apply to all the defence areas?

Mr. Key: It applies to the areas on the South and the East coasts.

Brigadier Mackeson: Would it be possible for those traders who had their previous applications refused to resubmit their applications now?

Mr. key: I have said that I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but consideration will be given to this.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Meals (Teachers' Responsibilities)

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Minister of Education to what organisations and unions the working party, set up to deal with the responsibility of teachers in connection with school meals, belong; and what experience in catering the different members have.

The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): The working party is no longer in being, having fulfilled its purpose of making recommendations to me, as a consequence of which Circular 97 was issued. The members were: the Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, the Education Officer of the London County Council, the Secretary of the Education Committee of the North Riding of Yorkshire, and three members Of the National Union of Teachers, together with three officers from my Department. The working party was not concerned with catering questions, but with the responsibilities of the teachers for supervision.

Brigadier Mackeson: Could the right hon. Lady say why the National Union of Women Teachers were not represented?

Miss Wilkinson: Because in these matters the National Union of Teachers is taken as representing the overwhelming body of organised teachers.

Beckenham

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Education if she has considered the 15 points of criticism of educational administration in the Beckenham area; and what action she is taking to meet them.

Miss Wilkinson: I have seen the document to which the hon. Member refers. I am having inquiries made, and will write to him as soon as possible.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Lady, as a matter of policy, concentrate on putting the present buildings and existing services in order, before she launches out on any grandiose schemes of education?

Miss Wilkinson: I have put my policy before the House.

Health of Children

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the Minister of Education if she will issue a statement based on the reports of the school medical officers, giving for the years 1934, 1938 and 1945, the average weight, height and health by age categories, of boys and girls, respectively, between five and 13 years of age in the county borough of Sunderland.

Miss Wilkinson: I regret that the statistics asked for are not available, but I am sending my hon. Friend some information about nutrition surveys in Sunderland, which indicate the health of the children before the war, and in 1945.

Teachers' Allowances, Wales

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education how many Welsh education authorities are awaiting a decision by her Department on their schemes for the payments for posts of special responsibility under the last Burnham Agreement.

Miss Wilkinson: The general position of Welsh local education authorities in this matter does not differ substantially from that of other local education authorities. As matters now stand, four local education authorities have submitted schemes for the payment of allowances to teachers in primary and secondary schools upon which a decision cannot immediately be given. In the case of three other authorities, further details or amended proposals are awaited. Proposals for the payment of allowances to teachers in technical colleges, etc., are awaiting decision in the case of one authority.

Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this matter has been hanging fire for a long time, and that considerable inconvenience is being caused to many of the teachers concerned, because the salary to which they believed they are entitled is held up for a decision?

Miss Wilkinson: Not altogether; one of the difficulties is the slowness of the local education authorities in asking for a decision. However, we are dealing with it in a different way now, and I have sent out a circular. In all except the most awkward cases it should form a general basis for these cases.

Further Education (Books)

Major Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of Education the maximum grant available to cover the cost of the necessary books to students receiving an award under the Further Education and Training Scheme.

Miss Wilkinson: Grants are based on standard figures for maintenance recommended to me by the committee of the university concerned. The cost of books is included in the figures. There is no special "book" grant. If a student has exceptionally heavy expenditure on books, and his college recommend that he needs special help, we can give him an addition to his grant.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Are the necessary books generally available, or are most of them out of print, as so many educational books are?

Miss Wilkinson: The position has been much more difficult than it is now, but, through the activities of what is known as the Moberly Committee, I think there is now as much paper as educational publishers can take up.

Personal Case

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware that a demobilised prisoner of war, by name Arsene Polet, was a supply teacher at Haydock, Lancashire, R. C. School; that when he finished as a supply teacher he was interviewed on 7th March for employment under the emergency teachers scheme, but has, as yet, had no reply to his application; and, as the delay keeps him from seeking other continuous work, if she will expedite a decision on whether he is required for teaching work.

Miss Wilkinson: I am sorry that Mr. Polet has not received an explanation of the delay. I understand that there was some doubt about his physical fitness, and the examining medical officer wished to see him again after an interval when he

had had time to recover from the effects of his captivity. A second medical examination will be arranged in the next week or two.

Trainees (Employment)

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Education whether she will ensure that all ex-Service students who have been found suitable and accepted for a teachers' training course shall, if they so desire, be employed temporarily as supernumerary teachers pending the start of their course.

Miss Wilkinson: I have already made suggestions on this matter to local education authorities, and am sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular which I have issued, but I cannot require authorities to offer employment to these candidates without regard to local circumstances.

Mr. Amory: As some of these people are in fact dropping out, and as their loss will be a great pity from the point of view of the teaching profession, will the Minister do her utmost to encourage authorities to adopt as farsighted a policy as possible in this matter?

Miss Wilkinson: I am sorry, but we have had to work out the policy for this in the very difficult circumstances of supply, as I have explained to the House on several occasions, and I am afraid that this is the best way we can deal with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Women Employees

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the policy of his Department in regard to the retention of women in those sections of the Department which previously operated with male staff.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): The general policy is to restore prewar practice, except where different arrangements are made by agreement with the staff associations concerned. This policy is in accord with assurances given during the war to the staff associations. With the return of Post Office men from the Forces, and the increased recruitment of men, considerable progress has been made in implementing this policy. It has been found possible to release large


numbers of women whose war work was completed; for example, the number of women doing postman's work has fallen during the last twelve months from 18,000 to 8,000. I may add that women who are eligible for establishment and desire to stay in the Post Office will be considered for appointment as telegraphist or telephonist.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister tell the House how many ex-Servicemen are waiting for jobs in his Department?

Mr. Burke: I could not tell the hon. Member offhand, but the Post Office has a very good record in appointing ex-Servicemen.

Mails, Malaya

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent the delay in mails to Malaya is caused by the surface mails not being landed at the first Malayan discharge port and sent on by rail; and when he hopes to be able to overcome this difficulty.

Mr. Burke: I am assured by the Malayan postal authorities that mails are normally landed at the first Malayan discharge port. They are investigating a recent case where mails were overcarried from Penang to Singapore.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Would the Minister say whether the mails are in fact landed by lighter as soon as the steamers carrying them arrive at the port, or do they have to wait ten days or a fortnight until the steamer gets a berth?

Mr. Burke: These arrangements are a matter for the local postal authorities.

U.N.R.R.A. Personnel, Greece (Postal Facilities)

Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will give details of the postal arrangements now available for British U.N.R.R.A. personnel serving in Greece; whether he is aware that these are inferior to those of the British military postal service which could previously be used; why the change was made; and what arrangements he can assist in making to provide a more reliable and speedier service.

Mr. Burke: U.N.R.R.A. personnel are as a general rule allowed to use the Army

Post Office services in countries where civil postal facilities do not exist or are markedly inferior to those of the Army Post Office. As there is in operation a full civilian letter service between Greece and the United Kingdom both by air and surface, which is comparable with Army mail service as regards transit times and frequency, U.N.R.R.A. personnel in Greece now use the civil letter post. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the change over is in accordance with normal policy and will bring U.N.R.R.A. personnel in Greece into line with those in other parts of the Middle East Command where full civil postal facilities are available. As the Greek authorities have not yet agreed to restore the civilian parcel service, U.N.R.R.A. personnel continue to use the Army Parcel Post

Lieut.-Colonel Sharp: Is the Minister aware that the facilities existing at the present time for U.N.R.R.A. personnel are nothing like as good as they were when military facilities could be used, and that it is taking up to three weeks to get a letter to this country, whereas formerly it took five days? Is my hon. Friend further aware that American personnel serving with U.N.R.R.A. have excellent postal facilities for sending letters and parcels, both to the United States and to this country, and will he see to it that British personnel serving with U.N.R.R.A. obtain facilities at least equal to those of the Americans?

Mr. Burke: The privilege of using Army Post Office facilities is restricted to personnel with military addresses. This is in accordance with the normal policy of the Army.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I would ask the Minister to reconsider that decision, having regard to the considerable dissatisfaction that exists among the personnel of U.N.R.R.A. Does he not think he should reconsider the decision, and that until the transit arrangements on the Continental systems approximate more closely to prewar standard, it is desirable that they should share the postal arrangements with the military?

Mr. Burke: This is a decision of General Headquarters, Middle East Command.

Mr. De la Bère: Of course the hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider it.

Orkney and Shetland

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will arrange for North Ronaldsay to be connected by cable to the telephone system in Orkney.

Mr. Burke: This matter is being considered in connection with an inquiry at present being made into the extension and improvement of the telecommunication services in Orkney. Full weight will be given to the hon. Member's representation.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will give a list of the places in Orkney and Shetland in respect of which he has received applications for the installation of telephone call boxes, stating whether the guarantees required by his Department have been provided; whether work has begun on any of these installations; and the date by which they are expected to be completed.

Mr. Burke: As the list is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:


 Orkney.


Clestrain.
Rendall.


 Shetland.


Billister.
Aywick.


Culswick.
Basta.


Dale of Walls.
Colvaster.


Funzie.
Cunnister.


Muckle Roe.
Cuppaster.


Norwick.
Gossaburgh.


West Burrafirth.
West Yell.


Westing.
Vatster.

A full guarantee against loss is not required but only a contribution of £4 annually for five years in each case, after which the Post Office will bear the whole loss. This contribution is, so far, forthcoming only in respect of the kiosk desired at Billister. This kiosk will necessitate a very large amount of construction work, but will, it is expected, be ready for service by the end of March, 1947.

Air Mails (Charter Flights).

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent he is using private charter air firms

to carry surplus mail either by chartering special aeroplanes or by utilising vacant space on special charter flights when space is not available on the regular scheduled services of B.O.A.C. and the two newly-formed national corporations.

Mr. Burke: There has been no occasion to charter aircraft for air mail conveyance or to make use of other special charter flights for the purpose.

Sir W. Wakefield: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General consider using these special charter flights in order to prevent delays occurring in the carriage of air mails?

Mr. Burke: As I say, there has been no occasion to use them. If there was occasion we should consider every means available.

Telephone Service, Putney

Mr. Marples: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the average time taken at Putney telephone exchange to obtain a local call; and what is the average time over the whole of the London telephone service.

Mr. Burke: The average time taken at Putney telephone exchange to obtain a call to a subscriber in the London area is 55.4 seconds as compared with 55.2 seconds for all London manual exchanges.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman says "London manual exchanges." Could he give us a comparison with the London automatic exchanges?

Mr. Burke: Unfortunately the contrast between the automatic and manual exchanges is too frequently made without consideration, It is because manual exchanges compare so unfavourably with automatic exchanges that we have so many complaints.

Mr. Linstead: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this exchange has been scheduled by his Department for transfer to automatic working? Can he give any indication when that transfer is likely to take place?

Mr. Burke: It is our intention to transfer all the manual exchanges to automatic working but it is a question of building, and as the hon. Member probably knows, that is one of the difficulties we have, like other Departments.

Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Gentleman aware not only of the difficulties of getting calls to and from Putney, but that conversations—conversations of both sexes—are overhead, which is a source of considerable embarrassment?

Postal Services (Delays)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters posted and addressed to places less than 50 miles away still not infrequently take 48 hours to reach their destination; and when an improvement in the speed and punctuality of the postal service may be expected to take place.

Mr. Burke: No, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that delay of the order referred to is frequent. Postal services in many areas have already been improved and by the end of this year the improvement should be general throughout the country. I shall be obliged if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have details of the cases he has in mind in order that inquiry may be made.

Sir G. Jeffreys: 1 shall be glad to send the hon. Member particulars of quite recent cases of the kind to which I have referred. Can he give any assurance that normal prewar postal services may be restored at an early date?

Mr. Burke: As I have already stated, there has been a considerable improvement, and by the end of the year there will be more. I shall be glad to look at any particular case.

Letter Post (Unit Cost)

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the cost to the State, calculated to the nearest ascertainable fraction of id., of the collection and delivery of an inland letter up to two ounces in weight.

Mr. Burke: Separate cost figures for inland letters are not available. The roughly estimated overail cost of collection, sorting, conveyance and delivery of letter packets of all kinds, which include letters, postcards. newspapers and printed papers, is 1.4d. per item.

Mr. Medlicott: In view of that disclosure, can the Minister say how a Socialist Government can justify making such a huge profit out of the pocket of the consumer?

Mr. Burke: The hon. Member forgets that in that 1.4d. there is included the carriage of papers, which is cheaper than letter rate.

Handbills (Pillar Box)

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to certain handbills pasted on the pillar box in Wink-worth Road, Banstead, Surrey, which bear the name and address of Ronald Church, 77, Banstead Road, Carshalton; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir. The handbills in question were removed immediately the matter was brought to notice and steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence.

Mr. Williams: Has the Minister sufficiently impressed upon this individual that he must not use pillar boxes to enable him to publicise his political prejudices?

Mr. Burke: It is a question of legal action.

Accommodation. Limavaddy

Mr. Randall: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the total area available in the Limavaddy, Northern Ireland, post office, for the public counter and sorting office; what suitable space is available for welfare accommodation allocated to both sexes and to each grade; if he is aware that the accommodation and the office is much below the standard set by the department; and what action does he propose to take to see that the accommodation necessary for carrying out Post Office work is provided at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Burke: The areas of the public office and sorting office at the Limavaddy Post Office are 188 sq. ft. and 287 sq. ft. respectively. The welfare accommodation for the male staff consists of a retiring room of 55 sq. ft.; and the accommodation for the female staff consists of a cloakroom of 35 sq. ft. and a retiring room of 112 sq. ft. It is appreciated that the accommodation is below departmental standards for new buildings and the question of providing fresh accommodation has been in hand for some years. Arrangements are now well advanced for the purchase of a site for a new Post Office; and financial provision has been


made in the current buildings programme for the work to proceed when the site purchase has been completed.

Mr. Randall: While I am glad to have that statement, may I ask if the Minister realises that this office really is a disgrace to the Post Office administration, and will drastic action be taken on this occasion, because we have had promises before, and will the matter be put in the front line of priorities in the building programme?

Mr. Burke: Yes, but this has been going on for some time, and now we have taken active steps to alter it,

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTION (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Prime Minister why it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to announce the date of the next General Election at this early date.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I assume the hon. and gallant Member has in mind certain remarks contained in a recent speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance. My right hon. Friend's statement referred to a suggestion made by certain of our opponents that the Government would not last for five years. To this my right hon. Friend replied that he preferred the forecast of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. This had reference to a remark made by the Lord Privy Seal that an election might be held in "the merry month of May" in 1950—a remark which clearly was not intended as a statement of Government policy.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Are we to understand from that answer by the Prime Minister that apart from the merry month of May, it is a case of the merry Minister of National Insurance?

The Prime Minister: No, 1 think the implication is that Members ought to realise what are the occasions for solemn pronouncements on Government policy and what are the occasions for remarks such as we all make sometimes rather more lightly.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Should not the Opposition be extremely grateful for the

courtesy of a hint as to how long they have got in which to recover themselves?

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Was this humorous pronouncement as firm and reliable as that other statement by the Minister of Education about bread rationing?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE ARRESTS (INFORMATION TO U.S.)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Prime Minister what procedure was adopted in notifying the U.S. authorities of the action to be taken in Palestine.

The Prime Minister: Within a few minutes of the hour at which the measures taken in Palestine on 29th June were begun, President Truman was given full information on these measures by His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 1st July in Washington two statements were made, the first implying that information had been given, and the second contradicting it? Will he give some assurance that the State Department at least is fully aware of what happened?

The Prime Minister: I have given full information, but I cannot be answerable for what statements are made elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Censorship

Mr. Austin: asked the Lord President of the Council why, in view of the fact that under Subsection (3) of Section four of the licence granted to the B.B.C. in January, 1927, he has power to prevent any item being broadcast, he refuses to interfere in the case of particular broadcasts of an entertainment or instructional nature which have proved offensive or distasteful to large sections of the public.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): It is, I am afraid, clear that the B.B.C. cannot please all the people all the time and all listeners, including Ministers of the Crown, must find occasional B.B.C. programmes distasteful to them. But the Government certainly do not consider this sufficient


justification for taking the very serious step of imposing a censorship on broadcasting.

Mr. Austin: Having regard to that answer, would my right hon. Friend consider widening the scope of acceptance of Questions at the Table, so that Members of this House may have the right to put down a Question about a talk which may be postponed, or a programme which proves distasteful to the public?

Mr. Morrison: I should not have any strong feelings against that, but I understand that the doctrine that determines what is accepted at the Table is the degree of responsibility of Ministers in the matter, and it is exceedingly difficult for me to arrange, or indeed to argue, anything that goes beyond that doctrine. Ministers are responsible to Parliament, and must be held responsible to Parliament. On the other hand, to hold Ministers responsible to Parliament for things for which they are not responsible would perhaps be objectionable the other way.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it possible to do something about the inspired propaganda, especially as regards the American loan and petrol? What has increased petrol to do with the loan?

Mr. Morrison: I wish it were possible to do something about the hon. Member.

Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order. Am I entitled to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I am quite able to look after myself?

European Service

Mr. Collins: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the countries to which the programmes broadcast in the European Service on the medium wavelengths 307.1 metres and 267.4 metres are directed.

Mr. Burke: At the present time, programmes broadcast in the European Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation on the medium wavelengths of 307.1 metres and 267.4 metres are directed to Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland. France, Germany, Greece. Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since these medium transmitters have a range up to 100 miles, in the main, at least two wavelengths are broadcasting into the empty air, whilst the same programme is broadcast simultaneously on powerful short wave transmitters, and would he consider returning one or both of these medium wavelengths to home listeners, as before the war?

Mr. Burke: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. These wavelengths are absolutely essential for the European service.

Mr. Collins: Is 'the Minister aware that it is stated in the White Paper that a range of these medium waves is up to 100 miles, and that he has just given us a list of countries which, obviously are well outside that range?

Mr. Burke: That is true, but they are necessary, all the same, and are supplemented by short wavelengths as well.

Major Bruce: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he has received any reports from the countries concerned as to the quality of the reception?

Mr. Burke: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put that question down.

Regional Amalgamation

Mr. Collins: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that, for the majority of West Country listeners, reception of the light programme of the B.B.C. is very poor; that, except in Plymouth and Bristol, they will not receive the third programme at all; and if he will state how many of the disenfranchised 6 per cent of the population, mentioned in Command Paper 6852, paragraph 41, live in the West Country and the proportion that will have to rely entirely on the Welsh programme for their Home Service.

Mr. Burke: Reception of the Light Programme should be satisfactory throughout the West Country on 1,530 metres, and in certain areas also on 261.1 metres. Reception of the third programme should be satisfactory over a large part of the present West Region, although unfortunately, owing to the shortage of wavelengths, satisfactory reception in Devon and Cornwall will not be possible, except in an area round Plymouth.
The 6 per cent. of the population which will not receive the Home Service, is made up of 5.3 per cent. outside the present West Region, and only 0.7 per cent. within that Region. 9.2 per cent. of the population of the present West Region will need to turn to the Welsh Home Service for satisfactory reception.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my information, the Light Programme is very badly received West of Taunton, disgracefully in Wiltshire, and not at all in Exeter, and that, if this proposed amalgamation from Cornwall to the Potteries is proceeded with we shall be without these broadcasting facilities at all?

Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister prepared to offer any reduction in the licence fee to people in those parts of the country where the reception is poor?

Mr. Burke: The object of increasing the licence fee is in order to improve the service.

Mr. Beechman: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that a most important service of West Region is the considerable assistance given to the farming community in the far West, whose needs, both in regard to agriculture and horticulture, differ so widely from the needs of the agricultural community in the Midlands?

Mr. Burke: I do not think the, farming community will suffer as a consequence of the changeover. The change is absolutely essential because of the shortage of wavelengths.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Will the Minister consider consulting with the Cornish people before allowing this change to take place?

Mr. Collins: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will publish coverage maps showing how the proposed merger of the Midland and West Regional programmes will affect reception of the Home Service in the West Country.

Mr. Burke: I am having copies of maps prepared, which I will send to the hon. Member.

Mr. Collins: Would it be possible under the Lucerne plan, to consider the ques-

tion of using ex-enemy wavelengths which are not now in use?

Mr. Burke: That is a question of international agreement.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the Minister realise that the fact that the B.B.C. is a monopoly imposes on him the duty of ensuring that listener opinion is fully consulted before these mergers are made, and will he say what possible justification there is for the policy which has been adopted to merge these two great Regions without consultation?

Mr. Burke: There was need to get, somewhere, somehow, an extra wavelength for the European Service, and, after very careful consideration, it was discovered that the least deterioration for the least number of people would be caused by bringing both Midland and West Regions in one wavelength, supplemented by another.

Mr. Marlowe: Do not all these questions and problems indicate the existence of the necessity for an inquiry?

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General where the new Regional headquarters will be situated after the proposed amalgamation of the Midland and West Regional programmes; and if he will state the names of the officials who have been selected for the posts of Regional Director and Regional Programme Director.

Mr. Burke: I am informed by the Corporation that the administrative headquarters of the new combined region will be at Birmingham, but that there will also be a Bristol director. I understand that the Corporation will announce the names of the officials at an appropriate time.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the Minister aware that there is nothing in common between Birmingham and the West Country, and that Birmingham will probably dislike the association as much as the West Country certainly will?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does the Minister really think that a Bristol director can really represent the whole of the West County in this matter? Are not the interests of Bristol very different from those of Cornwall and Devon?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

L.P.T.B. Employees (Trade Union Membership)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to enable the 12 tramwaymen, of whom he has been informed and who are at present drawing pay from the L.P.T.B. but are not allowed to work on the ground that they are members of one union and not of another, to resume work.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on this subject on 18th June last and to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that a reference to an earlier unsatisfactory reply does not make the present reply at all satisfactory? Are all the resources of the Government inadequate to relieve us of this revolting and ridiculous situation?

Mr. Isaacs: If it is a revolting and ridiculous situation, there are some Members who are responsible for it and who could ease it themselves if they so wished.

Scottish Banks (Staff Associations)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many unions there are in the Scottish banking industry; and
(2) what conciliation machinery exists for the purpose of settling disputes in the Scottish banks; and to what extent it is functioning.

Mr. Isaacs: In addition to the National Union of Bank Employees, which incorporates the former Scottish Bankers Association, there are eight associations, each catering for the staff of the various banks in Scotland. These latter associations are members of the Central Council of Scottish Bank Staff Associations, which is a party to a Joint Conciliation Council of the Scottish Banking Industry. I have no information as to the extent to which it is functioning.

Textile Industry (New Entrants)

Mr. Prescott: asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of new entrants into the spinning side of the textile industry within the last six months; and what proportion thereof are female operatives.

Mr. Isaacs: In the six months ended 30th April, 1946, the number was 10,363, including some 5,000 ex-Servicemen released from the Forces. 4,857, or 47 per cent. of the total, were females.

Reduxing (Health Precautions)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to safeguard the health of workers from the possible harmful effects of new processes introduced into industry without adequate knowledge of their effect upon the health of the workers concerned in their use, with particular reference to the process known as reduxing, in the aircraft industry.

Mr. Isaacs: It is the practice of the Factory Department to keep in touch with new industrial processes and to advise as to any special health risks, but I understand that reduxing in the aircraft industry is not particularly new. It involves the use of synthetic resin glues which are known to be liable to cause dermatitis it adequate precautions are not taken; and following inquiries by the Factory Department in 1942 a departmental leaflet describing the precautions to be adopted, as well as a poster for display in factories were widely issued. The main precautions are good ventilation to avoid exposing the skin to vapour from the glue, and measures to reduce contact with the glue and avoid it drying on the skin.

Training (Shortage of Materials)

Mr. John McKay: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the painters and decorators in the Wallsend training centre are unable to get on with their training, due to the shortage of paint, water paint, wallpaper and other materials; and if he will take steps to prevent paint, etc., being supplied to less essential jobs during this period of shortage in the training centre.

Mr. Isaacs: The shortage at the Wall-send Centre was a temporary one and has now been met. I am assured every effort is being made to see that training is not hampered by shortage of materials.

National Service Hostels (Charges)

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that notice has been given at the aero-engine


works near Cheltenham, that hostel charges are to be raised from 25s. to 30s a week for men and 20s. to 25s. for women; that people work there from different parts of Monmouthshire; that these charges together with getting home at weekends are more than they can manage and that they would be better off at home on unemployment pay; and if he will take steps to see that the hostel charges remain as at present.

Mr. Isaacs: The reason for increasing the hostel charges were indicated in my reply of 2nd July to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. William Paling). I regret that I cannot see my way to varying the decision.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Coventry also workers are being discouraged from living in National Service hostels because of the proposed increase in rates? As these hostels were never intended to be self-supporting, would he put the charges back to the original figure?

Mr. Isaacs: In reply to the first part of the question, I am not aware of that. I assert that the increased charges are now considerably lower than those for anything comparable with these services elsewhere.

Building Work, Devon (Labour)

Mr. Amory: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that while local firms of builders in Devon are unable to cope with the accumulation of urgent work through lack of labour, they are still unable to obtain the release in Class B of their skilled bricklayers and carpenters in the Army, and if he will take steps to ensure that skilled men in these trades, for whom work is readily available, shall be offered immediate release 'in the national interest.

Mr. Isaacs: Release in Class B is offered to bricklayers and carpenters who are eligible up to the numbers authorised. If, however, the hon. Member has in mind cases in which urgent housing or other high priority work is being held up I shall be glad to look into them if he will let me have the details.

Appointments Department

Mr. Kendall: asked the Minister of Labour if he will cause investigations to

be made concerning the conduct and management of the appointments bureaux, with a view to satisfying himself that the department is functioning without prejudice as to the social standing of ex-Service applicants for registration and consideration; and whether he will consider handing over the functions of this department to the labour exchanges.

Mr. Isaacs: The Appointments Department is under continuous survey, and I am satisfied that ex-Service applicants are registered and submitted for suitable employment on their merits without regard to social standing. I have no intention of abolishing the special service it provides for men and women seeking appointments in the higher ranges.

Mr. Kendall: Is the Minister aware that it would cause a great deal less inconvenience for these people if they could go to their local employment exchanges rather than having to go in many instances many miles to attend at the appointments bureaux?

Mr. Isaacs: It might cause them a little less inconvenience to go to the exchanges, but I am sure it would mean a great deal of delay in getting the proper skilled services which are provided for them at the special centres.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Printing and Paper (Scotland)

Mr. Gilzean: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the £13,000,000 net, spent on printing and paper each year, finds its way to the Scottish printing and paper industries.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): £1,400,000 out of £10,500,000 (gross).

New Issues (Priority List)

Mr. Nigel Birch: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what changes there have been in the priority list of May, 1945, for new issues under which the Capital Issues Committee operates.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): None, Sir.

Mr. Birch: Could the Minister give any indication about what interval of time must elapse before these decisions are reviewed? Presumably the situation will not stay static for ever?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That was not the Question. The Question on the Paper asks me what changes have been made, and the answer is, "None, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Harvesting Leave

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a workshop mechanic working at the National Physical Laboratory with 10 years' service and £6 18s. a week wage, with only one week's leave and no sick pay or extra privileges, has been refused the additional six days' leave with pay to help with harvesting, which is being offered to the scientific officers who receive £600 to £700 a year with six weeks' leave, plus sick leave and other privileges; and what steps he proposes to take to abolish this distinction within the Civil Service and to encourage the lower-paid workers to help with the harvest.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but I am glad to announce that arrangements have now been completed for the extension of the harvesting leave scheme to Government industrial employees.

Mr. Osborne: Might I ask the Minister when this announcement was made, because my complaint reached me only two or three days ago; and in view of the great importance of getting in the harvest will he do everything possible to release these men?

Mr. Dalton: Yes we are most anxious to do it. This is the first year in which it has been possible. During the war years it was evidently not so easy. This is a new announcement which will operate forthwith, and this is the first occasion on which it has been made.

Ex-Servicemen

Mr. Kendall: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) if he will consider the employment of ex-Servicemen, particularly disabled men, in Civil Service positions where the work is of a routine nature which does not need academic qualifications and which have

been held during the war years by unqualified men on the ground of emergency; and
(2) if he will consider giving clear instructions to the effect that ex-Servicemen will be given priority of employment in the Civil Service over married women with husbands in full-time employment, retired business men over 6o years of age, retired Government and local government servants and youths reaching military age.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Employment in certain subordinate grades of the Civil Service is reserved, where possible, for ex-Servicemen. In filling other vacancies of a temporary character Departments select those who appear most suitable for the particular posts from the field submitted by the Ministry of Labour, and give due consideration to any submissions of ex-Servicemen and disabled persons.

Mr. Kendall: Will further consideration be given to the claims of ex-Servicemen to these Civil Service posts?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Every consideration is given. In some cases in the reconstruction examination they have up to 75 per cent. of the places allotted to them.

Annual Leave

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual leave with pay to the various grades of civil servants; and if there is any difference between those who are and those who are not on the establishment.

Mr. Dalton: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the current arrangements. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the statement made in my previous Question, will the Chancellor see that the great disparity between the more privileged civil servants and the poorly paid civil servants is narrowed? There should not be so much class distinction between them.

Mr. Dalton: The two Questions are quite different. The first is about the harvest and this is about the difference in categories of civil servants. It is quite a separate question.

Mr. W. J. Brown: By what process, intellectual, moral, physical, or educa-


tional, is the reasoning come to that an unestablished civil servant requires less leave than an established civil servant? Is it not possible to wipe away this stupid, arbitrary and irrational distinction?

Mr. Dalton: Using fewer long words—this is a matter we can go into another day.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Would it not be a better proposition to do away with all

CIVIL SERVICE ANNUAL LEAVE, 1946.*


Grades.
Leave entitlement (number of working days)


Established Staff.
Unestablished Staff.


Administrative and analogous groups
30
24 rising to


Higher Executive Officers, Staff Officers and their analogies.
30
30 after 3 years' service provided maximum d scale (or range) for men is not less than £000 pa. (basic).†


Higher Clerical Officers, Executive Officers and their analogies.
30
18 rising to



24 after 3 years' service.


Clerical Officers
24



Shorthand Typists
21 rising to




24 after 5 years' service
12 rising to


Clerical Assistants and Typists
18 rising to
18 at age 18.



21 after 5 years' service



Messengers
14 rising to
12



18 after 5 years established service.



Industrials
6 (for other than supervisory grades).
6


* Civil Service leave was restricted during the war, and is restricted this year to a maximum of 30 days.


†The qualifying period of 3 years does not apply to temporary officers of the rank of Assistant Secretary and above.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Supplementary Pensions

Mr. Prescott: asked the Minister of National Insurance what procedure will have to be followed, upon the coming into operation in October next of the increase in old age pensions, by pensioners who wish to claim supplementary pensions.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The Assistance Board will, before October, review all current supplementary pensions in the light of the increases in basic pensions. Where the need for supplementation will continue, a revised order book will he

temporary and unestablished servants in the Civil Service?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend evidently is of a more advanced disposition than the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown).

Mr. Brown: Is there any guarantee that the Chancellor will take any notice of either of us?

Following is the statement:

issued to the pensioner with an explanatory note. No special application from those currently in receipt of supplementary pension will, therefore, be necessary. Other pensioners who wish to apply for supplementary pensions can do so as at present by filling in a simple form of application which can be obtained at any post office and posted without a stamp to the Board's area office.

Mr. Prescott: In effect, the adjustment will automatically be made?

Mr. Griffiths: The adjustment will automatically he made to those now receiving supplementary pensions.

Approved Society Staffs (Compensation)

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is now able to state what will be the position of employees of the administrative staffs of approved societies not taken over by his Department; whether the committee set up by the Minister to deal with this problem has reported to him; and if it is still his intention to compensate administrative staffs if not taken over by the State.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As regards the first and last parts of the Question, power to pay compensation to displaced officers of approved societies upon conditions to be embodied in Regulations is contained in Clause 67 of the National Insurance Bill. The general manner in which, subject to the approval of Parliament, the Government propose to exercise these powers was discussed during consideration of the Bill by Standing Committee A, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 13th day's proceedings of that Committee. As regards the second part of the Question the Committee has not yet made a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — FREE FRENCH SAILORS (RESIDENCE)

Mr. James Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special arrangements he is prepared to make to permit a small group of about 40 to 5o Free French sailors who have fought with the R.N. since 1940, and who are married to English girls, to make their homes here.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I cannot treat these men as a group, but applications will be considered individually on their merits.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he will bear in mind that, despite the fact that these men were given the most explicit assurances by a senior British naval officer in 1940 that they would be allowed to stay in this country, they have been returned to France where they have no homes and no employment?

Mr. Ede: I shall certainly take into account any promises which may have been made to these men, but I cannot

allow a naval officer to dictate the policy of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE COURTS (JUSTICES)

Mr. Austin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that at present no special qualifications are required for magistrates functioning at juvenile courts, he will arrange for the future a satisfactory training scheme for such magistrates, in view of the importance of this work.

Mr. Ede: One of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace is to consider and report whether any alteration is desirable in the law or practice as to the selection and appointment of justices of the peace to form panels for juvenile courts, and I should prefer to await their report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 15th July—Report stage of the Finance Bill and Motion to approve the Purchase Tax Exemptions (Utility Furniture) Order.

Tuesday, 16th July—Supply (17th Allotted Day); Committee. Debate on Broadcasting.

Wednesday, 17th July—Conclusion of the Report stage of the Finance Bill and consideration of Motions relating to the draft Order on Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (U.S.A.) and the Milk Marketing (County of Orkney) (Charges) Order.

Thursday, 18th July—There will be an opportunity for the House to hear an account of the Cabinet Mission's visit to India. We hope that it will be agreed that this will not be the occasion for a long Debate, and that it will be possible to bring it to a conclusion at a reasonably early hour. It may be convenient for me to inform the House that the Government propose, in the autumn, to afford time for a full discussion on the future Government of India. There is now a


White Paper in the Vote Office containing a record of the correspondence which has recently passed. The House will be aware that an Order will have to be made in regard to bread rationing and should the Order be prayed against, Thursday might afford an opportunity for the Motion to be moved at a reasonable hour.

Friday, 19th July—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of the Business on Thursday, we shall be having consultations through the usual channels. I understand that the Debate will then take place on a Motion to be put down by the Government?

Mr. Morrison: I gather that that might be a convenient course to adopt, because, otherwise, questions of legislation might arise which might cramp the style of the House. If that proves to be the case, we shall put down a suitable non-contentious Motion to help the House over that difficulty.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the Leader of the House whether there is any likelihood of a White Paper on Palestine being published in the near future?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot hold out any time promises about that. I am bound to say that my own recollection of a promise of a White Paper is a bit hazy. I am not at all clear about it. If no promise was given, perhaps I had better say nothing about it; if a promise was given, I will inquire into it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Whether or not a promise was given about the publication of a White Paper, my right hon. Friend will remember that we have continually been promised, for many weeks, a statement by the Government on its constructive policy in Palestine and we have not had it yet. The Prime Minister's statement last week was only concerned with administrative action and contained no information about policy. When may we expect a statement on policy?

Mr. Morrison: It is intended that there shall be a discussion before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. David Eccles: May I ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that out of 63 Questions put down to the Minister of Food, the right hon. Gentleman only had

time to answer 15, and that there are already over six on the Paper for next Wednesday? Because of this, no hon. Member has a chance of getting another Question answered by the Minister before 24th July. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the public interest in food questions at the moment, he will arrange the Questions in such a way that the Minister of Food may have further opportunities to answer them?

Mr. Morrison: There must be something very interesting behind so many Questions being put down on the Paper. I do not think I could arrange for the Minister of Food to monopolise the Order Paper.

Mr. Eden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a little unsatisfactory that it should not he in the power of the Minister of Food to enlighten the House in response to these Questions before 24th July?

Mr. Morrison: I think he has been very good in enlightening the House, and the country, up to now.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report stage of the National Health Service Bill will be taken, and what time will be allotted to it?

Mr. Morrison: I hope that stage will be reached shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is still the intention of the Government to terminate the Debate on the Civil Aviation Bill at seven o'clock this evening, in view of the fact that we are not yet half way through the Report stage?

Mr. Morrison: My impression was that we had made better progress, and I am sure that, with the helpful cooperation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends, we shall get through.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the Leader of the House say whether it will be possible to find time for a Debate on the source of the obviously inspired campaign about the American Loan and the increased petrol rationing? It is most inexplicable why we have this propaganda.

Mr. Morrison: It is all inexplicable to me; I do not follow the point. I am sorry, but we could not find time to have a Debate on that subject.

Mr. De la Bère: The right hon. Gentleman does not want the truth.

Mr. Bowles: Can my right hon. Friend say how many hours of Parliamentary time have been devoted to the Finance Bill? There are two more stages, the Report stage and the Third Reading, and there have already been two all-night Sittings. How many hours were spent altogether on the Finance Bill?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know, but the whole procedure in respect of the Budget and the Finance Bill has been on the leisurely side. There is a Committee of the House examining procedure and no doubt they will report on the problem; I cannot anticipate their report.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that something like five pages of the Order Paper are occupied by Amendments put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet points raised from all sides during the Committee stage?

Mr. Morrison: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they were all prearranged and agreed upon. I was only expressing the opinion that I think the whole procedure in connection with the Budget is capable of beneficial examination.

Mr. Eden: To refer to this matter of the order of Questions, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the point. As I understand it, the Questions addressed to the Minister of Food never come before No. 45, and never before the Prime Minister's Questions, with the result that they are seldom, it. ever, exhausted. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a measure of interest in these Questions on all sides of the House. Will he see if there cannot be a fairer method in regard to Questions?

Mr. Morrison: I will look into the matter, but I cannot remember clearly

whether it is the case that Questions to the Minister of Food never come before No. 45. If I may respectfully advise the Opposition, it would be well to remember that while this subject is a bit exciting today, it may be different the day after tomorrow. I remember that, when we were in Opposition, we had a special place for the Minister of Labour, and it was very strange how long that arrangement persisted after it was useful.

SAVINGS BONDS ISSUE (SUBSCRIPTION)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement on the result of the recent tap issue which closed on Tuesday.
The House will be glad to know that, following a heavy rush in the last week, the total of subscriptions to the cash issue of the 2½ per cent. Savings Bonds, 1964–67, exceeds £415 million. This is an excellent result. The average weekly rate of subscription, at over £55 million, is a record by comparison with all previous tap issues. Never before, through a cash issue, have His Majesty's Government borrowed so much for so little for so long. The response of the holders of 2½ per cent. National War Bonds, 1946–18, to convert their holdings into 2½ per cent. Savings Bonds, 1964–67, was also very satisfactory. This offer also closed on Tuesday and, out of £493 million of National War Bonds, over £330 million have been converted. The House will, I am sure, agree with me that these results are a striking testimony to the sustained strength of the national credit.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the statement he has just made is good propaganda for the American Loan?

Mr. Dalton: It is very good propaganda for this country and His Majesty's Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's

Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 123.

Division No. 244.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dye, S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Allighan, Garry
Edelman, M
Lipson, D. L.


Alpass, J. H
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lyne, A. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McAdam, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McEntee, V La T


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, J. (Ogmoro)
McGhee, H. G.


Austin, H. L.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGovern, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Ewart, R.
McKay, J (Wallsend)


Ayles, W. H.
Fairhurst, F.
McKinlay, A. S


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Foot, M. M.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Bacon, Miss A.
Forman, J. C
McLeavy, F


Baird, Capt. J.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)


Balfour, A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McNeil, H.


Barstow, P G
Gallacher, W.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Barton, C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mainwaring, W. H


Battley, J. R.
Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bechervaise, A E.
Gibson, C. W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Belcher, J. W.
Gilzean, A.
Mathers, G.


Benson, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mayhew, C. P.


Berry, H.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Medland, H, M.


Bins, G. H. C
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Binns, J.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E R


Blackburn, A. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Grey, C. F.
Montague, F


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morley, R.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Mess Side)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Gunter, Capt. R, J
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guy, W. H.
Mort, D L.


Brook, D. (Haifax)
Haire, Flt,-Lieut J (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hale, Leslie
Murray, J. D.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Nally, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Naylor, T. E.


Buchanan, G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Burke, W. A
Hardman, D. R
Nichol, Mrs M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hardy, E. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Byers Lt.-Col. F.
Harris, H. Wilson
Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)


Callaghan, James
Harrison, J
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Orbach, M.


Chamberlain, R A.
Haworth, J.
Paling. WilI T. (Dewsbury)


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Chater, D.
Hicks, G.
Parker, J.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R
Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, Flt-Lieut. B. T.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Holman, P.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Cluse W S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.


Cobb, F. A.
Hoy, J.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Cocks. F S.
Hubbard, T.
Perrins, W.


Coldrick. W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Collindridge, F
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Porter, E (Warrington)


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Lt. H D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Irving, W. J.
Pritt, D. N.


Cooper, Wing Comdr G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A
Proctor, W. T


Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Janner, B.
Pryde, D. J.


Corlett, Dr. J
Jeger, G (Winchester)
Randall, H. E.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ranger, J


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Rees-Williams, D R.


Crossman, R H S.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reeves, J


Daggar, G.
Keenan, W
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Daines, P
Kendall, W. D.
Rhodes, H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kenyon, C.
Richards. R.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
King, E. M
Ridealgh, Mrs M


Dailies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Robens, A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kinley, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire.)


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Lang, G.
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Deer, G.
Lavers, S.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Rogers, G. H R


Diamond, J.
Leonard, W.
Royle, C.


Dobbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J A


Dodds N. N.
Lover, Fl. Off N. H.
Sargood, R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy, B. W.
Scollan, T




Scott-Elliot, W.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Segal, Dr. S.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wilkins, W A.


Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, O. G (Cleveland)


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Skinnard, F. W
Tiffany, S.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe)
Timmons, J.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Titterington, M F.
Willis, E.


Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)
Tolley, L.
Wilson, J. H


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wise, Major F J


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Usborne, Henry
Woods, G. S.


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Vernon, Maj. W- F.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Solley, L. J.
Viant, S. P.
Yates, V. F


Sparks, J. A.
Walkden, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stamford, W
Walker, G. H.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Stephen, C.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Zilliacus, K.


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)



Strachey, J.
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Stubbs, A. E.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Swingler, S.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mr. Simmons.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baldwin, A. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K


Beechman, N. A.
Hunt, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'brgh W.)
Prescott, Stanley


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bower, N.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Raikes, H. V.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jennings, R.
Ramsay, Mai. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R.A. (S'flr'n W'ld'n)
Lancaster, Col C. G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Challen, C.
Langford-Holt, J
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Linstead, H N.
Scott, Lord W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Drewe, C.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Snadden, W M.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spence, H. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I of Wight)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Eccles, D. M.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Eden Rt. Hon A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G
Maclay, Hon. J S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fraser, Maj H. C. P (Stone)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddt'n. S.)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Teeling, William


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)


Gammans, L. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Touche, G. C.


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marples, A, E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Marshall, D, (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D


Gridley, Sir A.
Medlicott, F.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Mellor, Sir J.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Hare, Lieut -Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Morrison, Rt Hn W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S L (Partick)


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Nicholson, G.



Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hope, Lord J.
Osborne, C.
Mr. Studholme and


Howard, Hon. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon O
Major Conant.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

CLAUSE 36.—(Air Transport Advisory Council.)

3.51 P.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 26, to leave out lines 33 to 37.
As the House knows, the Government are setting up an Air Transport Advisory Council. It will be the only body before which anybody who has any complaint or suggestion to make will be entitled to appear. It is true that, from time to time, questions may be asked of the Minister of Civil Aviation in this House, relating to the adequacy or otherwise of existing services. However, unless the Minister is still further to strengthen the control over the corporations, which we feel has already gone much too far, the only outside body before which complainants tan appear is this Air Transport Advisory Council. It is a pretty poor thing, but it is the best the Government are prepared to give to the travelling public. It is a poor thing because, for example, the Minister need only give this Council the information that he deems it expedient to give. While the Minister can fine anybody who does not tell him everything he thinks he ought to know, sums ranging from £100 upwards, he is only obliged to tell this Council what he thinks it expedient to tell them. It is again a poor thing because at any time the Minister may exempt whole classes of people, and a whole range of subjects, from the purview of this Council under the power he takes in this particular Clause. None the less, being, as it is, the best that the Government are prepared to give to the consumers, we want to see that it takes the best practical form under these rather lamentable circumstances.
What do the Government do in the words to which we take exception and for the removal of which we are now moving? In these words the Government expressly prevent the Council from being obliged to hear complaints about any service which is, for the time being, regulated by international agreement. It is true the words do not prevent anybody complaining to the Council. What they do is, they

prevent the Council from being obliged to listen to that complaint. We know quite well that, earlier in this Clause, it is provided that the Minister can set up any conditions he chooses. As it is obviously the intention of the Government in these words, that matters relating to international agreements shall not be discussed, it is not unreasonable for us to assume that the Minister will direct this Council not to consider complaints from the general public which relate to matters that are, for the time being, the subject of an international agreement. It is easy for the Government to suggest, in general terms, that the treaty making power is for His Majesty's Government, and that no outside body, such as, the Air Transport Advisory Council, should have the right to criticise, or animadvert on what the Government have done.
I think—as I hope to show—that in this case the Government are going far beyond the proper protection of the treaty making power of the Government, and are, in effect, preventing the air-travelling public from having any say in matters over which they most certainly ought to he allowed to exercise comment from time to time. Nearly every air service is or will be subject to some international agreement. A week or two ago we signed an agreement with Eire. For example, the London-Dublin service is now subject to the Eire agreement. The London-Paris service is subject to the agreement with France. The provincial service from Manchester to Lille in France is subject to an international agreement—appearing, I believe, as one of the scheduled routes in the agreement with France. It will be impossible for anybody to be sure that, if they do complain, the Air Transport Advisory Council shall be obliged to listen to what they have to say. If I feel there ought to be another service to Dublin, not run by any other corporation, or any competitor, but another service provided by the State-owned corporation, and if I say that service should run every day, or twice a day, because of travelling needs, or that other routes should be followed, the Minister may tell the Council to take no notice whatever of my complaint. This applies over the whole range of services between one country and another.
There is one further point which I think the Government have lost sight of, and I hope they will now repair it by agreeing to


our Amendment. We on this side of the House accept the Government's view that it is a good thing to link up the home service and the European service. British European Airways, which are to run the service to Europe, are also to take charge of the internal services in the United Kingdom. That was also part of Lord Swinton's plan. All parties agreed on it in the Coalition Government and the Conservative caretaker Government accepted that provision as well. We certainly do not intend to go back on that. Consider the consequences of it. By linking up the home services with all the European routes, almost every home service has now become subject, in greater or lesser degree, to some international agreement. We shall find more and more of these services prevented from having proper discussion before the Air Transport Advisory Council. The defence of the Government in Committee was that it would be embarrassing for them to have an advisory council commenting on international agreements. As has been shown constantly, this is only an advisory council; it can only recommend something to the Government, and the Government are not in the least obliged to take the slightest notice of it. Indeed, it is one of our complaints that they are not obliged to listen to the Air Transport Advisory Council. Surely the Government cannot seriously argue that they are being embarrassed in their international negotiations by advice tendered by an expert advisory body, whose advice they are not even obliged to accept?
I think we are entitled to ask this question: How on earth do the Government expect to get information which will enable them, when the time comes for these various treaties to be reconsidered, to put forward sensible suggestions for varying any international agreement they may have made? After all, it is the travelling public who know, and will know, where the shoe pinches. If they are not allowed to say so, how are the Government who represent them, and are their only representatives, to get information to enable them to make a better agreement next time with another country? I feel we are drifting into further illustrations of the results of all Socialist schemes, of the dislike of the Socialist Government to have proper discussion, and of their prevention of people commenting on what, in a moment of electoral aban-

don, they appear to have voted for. It is an illustration also of how the Government are fastening restrictions round the electorate, and if they had seriously thought those restrictions would be imposed upon them it would have certainly led to a very different result at the last election.
What will be the result of a provision of this kind? I hope I am as patriotic a citizen as anybody else. I certainly have no wish to do anything to harm my country, or to travel by other countries' routes when those of my own country are available. However, if I find it is impossible to complain about the service between London and Paris which is supplied by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, and if I find that Air-France welcome my complaint, and indeed provide me with a paper on which to write it down, despite the fact they are linked by an international agreement, I will begin to go by Air-France, when there might be some chance of my complaint being listened to and my ideas followed.

Mr. Gallacher: That is if the hon. Member wants to go to France?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly. If it is a question of going to Spain I must be allowed to comment on the Spanish service and on the route there. I think even the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) may find himself travelling by a Franco-sponsored corporation when he goes to stir up more trouble in Madrid.
I have taken pains to find out from some of these foreign companies what they do in a matter of this kind. What, for example, is done by Pan-America? Pan-America invites complaints from all sorts of people, without regard to their nationality and without regard to the route of which they are complaining, yet Pan-America, through their Government, are bound as we are by the agreements between the United Kingdom and America. The Belgian Line invites complaints and they do not say that no one can complain about the service between London and Brussels because it is, for the time being, regulated by an agreement between England and Belgium. This seems to be the only country in the world whose citizens are not to be allowed to complain because of some international regulation, which never prevents the other parties to the regulation from making their complaints.
We are gradually building up a State-privileged service which will have, as it has now, a complete monopoly, and which will also have complete protection against any sort of public criticism. We shall be driven to use the House of Commons as the only forum where we can make our complaints, and the grotesque situation which now arises on the Order Paper nearly every day will be magnified a hundredfold as, hit by bit, we find that the activities of these outside corporations cannot be discussed by the general public but that all complaints must be passed through the Parliamentary bottleneck. I cannot believe that that is in the interests of good government or of the proper discharge of our tasks in the air. I do most earnestly ask the Parliamentary Secretary or the Attorney-General to say that they will look at this again and either accept our Amendment or, in another place, introduce some words which will meet the same point of view.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is not much left for me to say in advocacy of this Amendment after the able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), but I would like to underline one or two points which seem to me to arise if the Government persist in their present attitude. The first is that as the Bill stands the wings of this Air Transport Advisory Council are clipped, and the value of the Council is gravely interfered with. From where is a Council of this kind to draw its information? Surely the fountain of all complaint or criticism of any kind of enterprise, whether it be Government or not, is the public? Therefore, if the public are to be muzzled in this way, if they cannot complain about any service which is the subject of an international agreement, the value of the Air Transport Advisory Council as the source on which the Minister may draw to improve the situation will be seriously curtailed.
Let us think for a moment of exactly what this means. The Government have announced that their conception of air travel is internationalist. If in fact—and we have moved a long way along that road—it is to be internationalist, we might as well scrap the whole of this Clause. Already we have a wealth of agreements with various countries going

much beyond what most of iv, thought, as we elicited in Committee. Let me for a moment take the treaty with Eire. We in Scotland and in Great Britain have all our services from this country to Eire conducted for us by a combined service, in which we are junior partners, and which is the subject of an international agreement. That means that we cannot open our mouths to this Air Transport Advisory Council, which is the only channel through which we can approach the Minister on anything to do with air travel between this country and Ireland. This, I submit, is a fantastic situation, and if it is multiplied by the number of other countries—Egypt, France, and, through the Eire treaty, Brussels, Amsterdam and Copenhagen—where are we left with any value in this Clause? I would like who-ever, replies for the Government, to say whether we are prevented from using the Air Transport Advisory Council to bring forward any representations in respect of a line which is indirectly the subject of international agreement. Under the Anglo-Eire Treaty, Irish aircraft are allowed to land in this country to pick up cargo here and then go on to Brussels, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo. Are travellers from this country to be prevented from criticising any other line which may be started from this country to Oslo, etc., because there exists an international treaty with Eire, against which it would offend if we raised complaints on the service to, say, Oslo? I would like to know whether the Government's contention is that this Air Transport Advisory Council is precluded from listening to complaints on that score because indirectly, through Eire, the service to Oslo is the subject of an international agreement.
The Attorney-General made much play in Committee with the objection to this proposal on the ground that this, as he said, was a quasi-judicial body. I say it is nothing of the sort. There is no judicial function attached to the Air Transport Advisory Council; it is entirely an examining and advising body, and I do not even believe that it is necessary for their deliberations and their advice to the Minister to be made public. But even if it is so, will it really offend the susceptibilities of a foreign country if our nationals who have some complaint to make about a service which is the sub


ject of an international agreement, go to some body in our country and say so? Surely that is carrying susceptibilities to a terrific length. We have already danced a merry dance in order to avoid treading upon Irish corns, and here once again we are to be prevented from opening our mouths upon any matter of criticism—fares, frequency of service, comforts and so on—because some other Government may be offended if we do so.
As a matter of fact, these treaties, if they are studied, do not regulate fares, and do not regulate the frequency of services. They lay down broad principles, and I do not believe that the broad principles are the kind of thing about which the public will in fact complain. They will complain about the ordinary mundane discomforts of travel, and to argue that because there is a treaty with some other country covering broad principles, anything that even touches the fringe of that treaty, becomes sacrosanct and exempt from criticism is indeed going too far. Would it really matter? These treaties contain Clauses laying them open to revision. The Anglo-Eire Treaty, for example, includes provision for a year's notice. What is the value of that, and what is the value of the Clause saying that where any point of disagreement arises the treaty is open to revision, if nobody is allowed to bring a complaint to show up a defect? The whole thing becomes a vicious circle, in which the Bill is so to speak chasing its own tail. Until some convenient channel can be found through which complaints may flow, it will not be possible to take a step forward in. order to improve the treaty, or the commercial agreement which hangs on it.
Surely the Attorney-General's case that it would offend foreign susceptibilities if these matters were to be considered falls to the ground when he tells us that, although the Air Transport Advisory Council is not forced to listen to complaints, it may nevertheless examine, of its own volition and under its own impetus, the very same things? If it will offend a foreign country if the Air Transport Advisory Committee is asked by the public to examine something which is the subject matter of a treaty, how comes it that it will not offend the foreign country if the Air Transport Advisory Council examines the very same thing

on its own initiative? The Government have made an extremely weak and poor case in defence of this Clause, which so restricts one of the few opportunities the public have to make their voice heard against the inefficiencies which, I believe, will show themselves under nationalisation, that if the Government do not accept this Amendment, Clause 36 will be of little value.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I did think at one time that, apart from the constitutional aspects of this matter, this Amendment might have had something in its favour, on the merits; but I confess that any such delusion has been dissipated by the speeches of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison). Although I have heard a good many speeches from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford which have had little relation to the subject under discussion, I do not think I have ever heard a speech which was so completely misconceived as that which he has addressed to the House on this Amendment. May I say, without, I hope, using language which is exaggerated or discourteous, that I cannot help thinking that the two hon. Gentlemen have completely misconceived the position under this Bill?
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford devoted a considerable part of his speech to saying that if he found he could not make complaints about the services provided by one of the statutory corporations in this country, but that he could make complaints—and would even be provided with a form so to do—in regard to the services provided by Air France, he would travel by Air France; or, if it was a question of going to Spain, that he would travel by Spanish air lines. I do not think the hon. Member has appreciated what this Clause does. There is nothing in this Clause, or in the Bill, to prevent the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford from directing whatever complaints he chooses to the corporations, to any one of the three, in regard to the facilities which they provide. He has exactly the same liberty—indeed, a great deal more—of directing complaints against the services provided by the three English corporations, as he has in regard to the services provided by any


foreign corporation. I really do not understand to what point the hon. Member was addressing his mind in this regard. If he considers the services provided by one of the statutory corporations are, in some respect, less efficient than those provided by Air France—whether he is provided with a form for writing down his complaint, I do not know—he is certainly entitled to address his complaints to the corporation, just as he can address them to Air France, just as he can address them to the Spanish corporation; but with this difference, that so far as Air France or the Spanish corporation is concerned, it may be that the complaint will merely be put in the waste paper basket. Certainly, they will not be considered by the foreign corporations with the knowledge that must exist in the case of any complaints addressed to the British corporations, that if the complaints are not dealt with they may be raised in the House, or some communication sent to the Minister in regard to them.
It is not only that in regard to addressing complaints that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford will have a greater opportunity in the case of the British corporations than in the case of Air France or the Spanish corporation. He has, of course, additional rights of complaint. He has the right to complain to this independent, outside body, the Advisory Council. I know of no institution of this kind which exists in France or in Spain to which he can address his complaints. With certain exceptions of a very limited character, as I shall seek to show, the hon. Member can if so minded spend all his time in addressing complaints to this independent body, whose duty it will be to examine them—and, of course, to examine them in a quasi-judicial way. When representations are made to a body of this kind it has to consider them, as I said in Committee, not arbitrarily, but in a quasi-judicial way. He will have that right. In addition, if he wants to make these complaints, he will be entitled to address them to the Government. He will have the ordinary right of a private citizen of writing a letter to the Minister; he will have the ordinary right of a private citizen of this country of writing a letter to his Member of Parliament and of having a Question asked in the House. No such right exists in the case of Air France or in the case of the

Spanish corporation; and I cannot for the life of me think why it was that the hon. Member devoted such a large part of his speech to suggesting, that the rights of complaint against the British corporation would be less than those existing in the case of foreign corporations, or that we were, in any way, attempting to protect the British corporations from proper complaint by the users of the services. Far from that being the case, we have provided additional means of complaining about the facilities provided by these corporations, going far beyond any procedure which is available either in the case of foreign corporations or in the case of private undertakings in this country.
4.15 p.m.
Now let me come to what is really the subject of the Amendment which both hon. Gentlemen—no doubt, exercising wise discretion—carefully refrained from mentioning. So far as the proviso, which the Amendment seeks to delete, is concerned, the matter is without any great significance, apart, possibly, from the constitutional point of view. It is one thing to establish a kind of quasi-judicial body, advisory though its functions certainly are, to inquire into the conduct of a statutory corporation and to report upon that conduct to the Government, and an entirely different thing to require such a body to inquire into the conduct of the Government. And that is what this proviso seeks to exclude. If it is desired to question the propriety or the expediency of any treaty into which His Majesty's Government enter the appropriate place to do so is Parliament. That is a matter involving the collective responsibility, not of these corporations, because it has nothing to do with these corporations what treaties His Majesty enters into, but of the Government; and it would be impossible, and, indeed, I should have thought, most embarrassing in our foreign relations, if an outside semiofficial body should be required by law to pass upon any kind of complaint which a private person, not being a British subject, might wish to address to it in regard to the treaties into which His Majesty had thought fit to enter. I would invite the House to say that, in regard to these matters, which are functions, not of the corporations, but of Parliament and the Government, it would be most undesirable to set up a multiplicity of legal' advisers. The legal adviser to the Gov-


ernment is Parliament, and the legal advisers to His Majesty are his Ministers. That is the constitutional position in this country, and it would be a pity to alter it in a Bill dealing with civil aviation.
But it is in no way the intention of His Majesty's Government, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford appeared at one time to suggest, to issue any directions excluding altogether from the purview of the Advisory Council, questions which may, directly or indirectly, touch upon foreign agreements affecting matters of civil aviation. The Minister may himself refer such matters to the Advisory Council for consideration, if he thinks it proper and expedient so to do, if he thinks that their views will be useful to him on any question which might arise thereafter as to the amendment of the treaty. He is free to do that under the Clause as it stands. Beyond that, the Council will remain free to consider, at its discretion, such matters as may be referred to it, both directly or indirectly, that may touch upon some question of a foreign agreement. If it were the case—I think some example of the kind was suggested on the opposite side of the House—some matter of detail was involved, then, no doubt, the council, exercising a wise and sensible discretion in these matters, would feel that that might properly be examined without causing any embarrassment, either to His Majesty's Government, or to any foreign Government which might be concerned in a particular treaty. If it was a question of frequency, or a question of comfort as one hon. Member has suggested, no doubt the Council would think that here was a matter which was not fundamental, not one of real principle, and was one consideration of which by them would not cause any difficulty.

Colonel Hutchison: I agree with what the Attorney-General is saying, but how is the Council to know that those are issues if the public cannot bring such matters before them?

The Attorney-General: There again, I think there is complete misapprehension on this matter—I am excluding the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow from the observations I made before, because it was, I think, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford who devoted the greater part of his speech to comparing the posi-

tion of Air France with the British corporations. There is nothing in the Clause as it stands, to prevent any member of the public, whether a British subject or not—and that is a very curious feature—making representations to the Advisory Council and complaining about some treaty into which His Majesty has entered. The Clause provides, however, that the Advisory Council are not compelled to pass upon such representations, and are not compelled to take them into account. If they receive a complaint upon the subject of some foreign treaty, they would be entitled to consider whether it was a mere matter of detail, such as some question on comforts provided by British services in comparison with other services, or whether it was an attack on the principle of a treaty concluded by His Majesty with a foreign Power. If the Council took the view that it was a matter of principle—as has been said, most of the treaties deal only with principles—and not of detail, the Council would not pass upon it. If in was a matter of detail which was not really covered by a treaty or, did not affect the general principles of a treaty, then no doubt the Council, in the exercise of wide discretion, would say that this was a matter with which they could deal. In the case mentioned of an Irish service through this country to some foreign country, I can see no reason why the Council should be precluded under this Clause from considering an independent representation that there was need for additional facilities, unless the treaty was expressly limited in some particular way: but if that was not so, it is open for anyone to say that there are not enough facilities. Corning back to the matter with which this proviso is intended to deal, the basic principles of international agreements, l must ask the House to say that the constitutional advisers of His Majesty are His Majesty's Ministers, and if the public of this country consider that His Majesty has entered into a treaty which is undesirable or inexpedient, the proper forum in which this matter should be considered is the House of Commons

Sir Wavell Wakefield: I understand the Attorney-General is refusing to admit this Amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) so admirably moved, as suitable to this Bill. I under-


stand that the Government are rejecting it, on the ground that this Advisory Council is of a quasi-judicial nature, in spite of the thorough explanation given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) showing that it is not. It is suggested that, if this Advisory Council were empowered to inquire into representations by members of the public about international agreements, it would, in fact, be inquiring into the conduct of the Government. Apparently the Council are not allowed to do this, but are to inquire into the conduct of the corporations. I understand that that is the reason why this Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. For the life of me I cannot see the difference. What are these corporations? They are publicly owned bodies, controlled by the Government, and they are the instruments of the Government. I cannot see the difference between these corporations and the Government, because, as I have said, they are owned and controlled by the Government, and their policy is the direct responsibility of the Government. If the Advisory Council criticise the conduct of the corporations, they are criticising the conduct of the Government, because the Minister is responsible for the operations of the corporations.
It seems to me that the Attorney-General has made a completely false point. If he is willing to concede that the Advisory Council can criticise the corporations, I cannot see why he does not accept the logical conclusion that they can criticise the Government. As the Bill stands, it seems to me that there is nothing much left for the Advisory Council to do. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies will tell us what there is for the Advisory Council to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford has pointed out, the air lines from this country run to all countries in the world; indeed, the internal air services in this country are part of the services which run to other countries. If all these services are subject, directly or indirectly, to international agreements and are to be excluded, what is left for this Advisory Council to advise about? The exclusion of what seems to me to be a very reasonable Amendment, makes nonsense of this Clause because it abrogates all the powers of this Advisory Council to advise. Again and again the Attorney-General has said

that if the public have complaints, they can make them to their Members of Parliament, but surely Members of Parliament have other work to do than deal with complaints of this kind.

The Attorney-General: I said that the normal course would be to make a complaint, in the same way as you would make a complaint in the case of any private undertaking, to the corporation, and then, if that did not bear fruit, there was the additional sanction that you could go to your Member of Parliament.

Sir W. Wakefield: That is true, but the purpose of having an Advisory Council of this kind is to introduce a medium for complaints by the public, and so there is no need to trouble Members of Parliament. I welcome the setting up of this Advisory Council, but what we complain about is that while we are setting up this admirable piece of machinery in the Bill, the Government are proceeding to take away all the powers it might have had; they are taking away all its most important functions. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter in view of what has been said, and if this Amendment is not precisely suitable, I hope it will be reworded so that the Advisory Council can, with propriety, hear complaints from the public about rates, fares and conditions of service, even if these matters are the subject, directly or indirectly, of international agreement.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: The Attorney-General has given a plain answer to hon. Members opposite which must convince everyone, who is not completely blinded by ignorance or prejudice. Since the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) is clearly one of those travellers who makes up his mind that he is going to complain before he starts travelling, and starts to complain from the moment he gets to the booking office, it would probably be a good thing for the British air services if, in fact, he gave his patronage to foreign air lines.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I think that everyone throughout the country regards a safeguard for the public, such as an advisory council, as a matter of the greatest importance when a monopoly of any sort is set up. In normal trade, if the customer is not satisfied, he can go elsewhere. Under this scheme, of three


monopolies, it is not possible for him to go elsewhere, except to a foreign air line. I think that it is of extreme importance that this Advisory Council should be an organisation which can be of genuine help to the people of this country. The speech of the Attorney-General has shown clearly that this organisation is of almost no value to the consumer whatsoever. He said that there would be three methods by which the public could appeal, if they felt that they were not receiving the service which they should receive for the money they were paying. He said that, first, one could write to one's Member of Parliament, and, secondly, one could write to the corporation.

The Attorney-General: First, to the corporation.

Mr. Fraser: He can first write to the corporation, secondly, to the Member of Parliament, and, thirdly, he may write to the Advisory Council a letter which they may reject, if they do not think it suitable. It is a case of the corporation—"Passed to you;" the M.P., "Passed to you;" the Advisory Council, "Reject." I believe that it is vital—and we were promised something of this nature in Committee—that there should be an Amendment to this Clause to say that the Advisory Council is a reality, instead of a myth, which I think is what is wanted by the people in the country, if not by some in this House.

Major Peter Roberts: I wish to take up one point made by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). That was the question of using the service of Members of Parliament in these forms of complaint. I, personally, looking into the future, object, on these nationalisation issues where there is a question of a complaint being raised, to the Government always saying, "You can bring the matter up through your M.P." I have listened to the Attorney-General speaking on other Bills—the Coal Bill, for instance—when the same sort of arguments which were put to him received a similar answer—"The M.P. can take it up." With the prospect of the nationalisation of iron and steel, gas, electricity and transport, it would seem that, on all these occasions, the Government will take the attitude that there is no need to set up a proper method

of dealing with complaints, because you can use this House as a channel for dealing with them. If that is so this House is going to lose a great deal of its power. It is going to be turned into a, more or less, routine complaint shop. I do not like that suggestion, and I do not like that method. This is the first time that I have intervened in this Debate, and I was only encouraged to do so, when I heard the Attorney-General using exactly the same argument here as he used on other nationalisation Bills. I think that we are beginning to see the trend, which is a very dangerous one, and I suggest to him, that, in the future, when he comes to advise the Government on other Bills of this kind, he should remember that we do not want this form of arbitration, I ask him, or the Parliamentary Secretary, to address himself to that point.

Mr. Mitchison: I think that we are getting some way from the consideration of the Amendment and from the proviso, which it is asked should be omitted from the Bill. As I understand the proviso, there is nothing whatever in it to restrict any matter being brought before the Council. The only point in the proviso is a simple one—that the Council shall not be required to hear certain representations.

Mr. Fraser: That surely is the whole point.

Mr. Mitchison: That is the one and only point under consideration now. The only point, therefore, of this Amendment is this: that the Council shall be required—if those who put down the Amendment have their way—to hear these representations. They shall be required to hear representations about matters which, for the time being, are regulated by international agreement to which His Majesty's Government is a party. With very great respect, what does it all come to? They are to be required to hear, and, therefore, presumably, to use the learned Attorney-General's phrase, to pass on representations as to matters of international agreement. Those who have supported the Amendment made a distinction between on the one hand the Corporation, regarded as a creature of the Government and something almost identical with the Government, and on the other the Air Transport Advisory Council, set up equally by the Govern-


ment and constituted by the Government. In some mysterious manner, the Advisory Council is to become the guardians of our liberties to such an extent that this Government-created body, set up for its expert knowledge on air transport, is to be the right body to consider foreign treaties to the exclusion of the Minister, who is a Member of the Government for that purpose, and to the exclusion of this House. That is what it comes to. It seems a remarkable view that the guardians of the liberties of the subject and the constitution of this country, should be a technical body, and should not only be entitled but actually bound to consider representations about treaties on a particular subject. I can conceive of nothing more dangerous, and no more peculiar innovation than that which is proposed.

Colonel Hutchison: This does not say "treaty"; it says "international agreement." The hon. and learned Member will know that these travel international agreements descend to details, so much as to come very nearly to include such matters as reductions of fares. What we say is that it should cover all that.

Mr. Mitchison: Surely that is the whole point. It does not matter, as regards the substance of the fact, whether you use the words "international agreement," or, for the sake of brevity, "treaty." There is nothing to prevent the Advisory Council dealing with these matters. In fact, they are required to do so, except on matters covered by international agreement. Concerning the general accommodation of the services and on matters in which the public is likely to be interested they not only can deal with them, but it is their duty to deal with them under this Clause.
I want to make one further point. I, like other Members of this House, have had from time to time to make representations to large privately owned undertakings on behalf of the public and generally I find it, to use a colloquialism, far from easy to get any change out of a large railway company, a large steamship company or even a large privately owned aeroplane company. I welcome this Clause because it will set up a body which will deal with representations from the general public, and I hope and believe that it will go far beyond anything which has hitherto

been done by the railways and other private undertakings of this country.

Mr. McKie: The Government have just had the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who made out, no doubt, a very plausible case, but, if I may say so without offence, I do not think he went the whole way towards clearing away many doubts and fears of hon. Members on this side of the House with regard to this paragraph. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman made a much better case in support of the Government than did the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who said that he agreed with the Attorney-General, and that the only thing that lay behind the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) was that he started complaining before he embarked on his journey. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect again on those words and I think he will agree with me that they were not justified. The only reason we are complaining about this paragraph is that we desire to see air travelling conditions for the public in the future made as easy and as comfortable as possible.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering towards the end of his speech talked about the representations he had made in the past to companies with regard to complaints from the general public and, as I fully expected, he instanced the railway companies of this country. I am not going to stand here, nor arc any of my hon. Friends, and suggest—I am talking now of the years before the second world war—that everything in the garden was lovely, with regard to the conditions on the great main lines of this country as far as the general public were concerned. I have been travelling to and from Scotland once a fortnight for 25 years, and I can certainly say that I found many causes for complaint in the years before the war. However, under this Bill we are proceeding to set up a State-owned, State-controlled air service for the people and naturally we expect greater efficiency—I know that is a word which always appeals to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—from a publicly owned company than we should get from any privately controlled body. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have that support from hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they not think for one moment that I am


porting public enterprise against private enterprise. Not at all. I believe in private enterprise and in individual liberty. I prefer the doctrines of the Manchester school to the economic theories held by hon. Members opposite, of which we have heard such a lot since the General Election.

Major Bruce: Would the hon. Member say he preferred the doctrine of efficiency?

Mr. McKie: I said I preferred the doctrines of the Manchester school to the economic theories held by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I really hope, despite the assistance which this Debate has provided for the Parliamentary Secretary and the Attorney-General, especially from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, who urged them to stand firm with regard to our proposal, that the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate that perhaps in another place he will see fit to introduce some words which will seek to allay our fears. I would ask him to remember, and indeed, all the supporters behind him, too, that we have only one object in mind and that is, to provide the greatest possible comfort for the general travelling public. We all hope that as a result of this Bill—and "hope springs eternal in the human breast"—we shall see a great extension of air travel. We certainly want to do everything possible to see that there are no unnecessary inconveniences as far as the great travelling public are concerned.

4.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) have disposed admirably, I think, of the constitutional aspect of this question, and it is only the constitutional aspect which induces us to put this proviso in the Bill. I only intervene because it is obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite think that many more subjects are excluded from the purview of the Advisory Council than are, in fact, excluded by the proviso. I think it is possible to reach an amicable settlement in this Debate. This proviso relates only to matters which are regulated by international agreements to which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are a party. That is an-

other name for saying treaties, for it does not relate simply to international agreements as such. If I made an agreement to meet a young lady in Paris on Saturday next, that would be an international agreement, but it would not be an international agreement to which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would be a party; at least, the collective responsibility of the Government would not be involved. What I am leading to is that agreements between operators are not, of course, excluded by this proviso. It relates to agreements to which His Majesty's Government are a party, and only to those agreements.
Secondly, the agreements to which His Majesty's Government are a party, that is to say, the treaties, do not cover nearly so many of the subjects raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite as is supposed. In the first place, the internal services of this country are not touched by this proviso. The fact that we are using the same corporation to run the internal services of this country does not affect this question. The internal services of this country are not regulated by agreements to which His Majesty's Government are a party, and, therefore, they are not covered by this proviso. Any questions affecting these services can be considered by the Air Transport Advisory Council. With regard to international agreements to which the Government are a party with other countries, there are also many subjects that can properly be considered by the Air Transport Advisory Council. All questions of comfort and whether bunks should be provided instead of seats and questions of that sort can properly be brought before the Council.
What are the subjects which are regulated by these inter-governmental agreements? They are questions of certificates of airworthiness, charges to be imposed on aircraft for landing, whether petrol brought in aircraft should be subject to Customs duty and so on. I do not imagine the Air Transport Advisory Council would wish to have such questions considered. Capacity is generally regulated by such international agreements, or at any rate the principles fixing capacity. Within those limits of capacity, frequencies are not generally fixed by intergovernmental agreement. Provided the capacity is not exceeded, we do not, in general, trouble how the frequencies are


fixed. In some agreements the frequencies are laid down, but those are exceptions. With regard to fares, they are, in general, subject to agreement between the companies. They are not directly the subject of inter-governmental agreement. I think I have made it clear that there are few subjects, on which the public would wish to make representations, which would be excluded by this proviso.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are not entirely satisfied with what we have heard, but what the hon. Gentleman has said, and those parts of the learned Attorney-General's speech which he devoted to the Amendment, and not to personalities, have provided some amplification. We feel that this Debate has been justified, and that some of our doubts have been assuaged. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the next two Amendments were discussed together.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move in page 27, line 10 to leave out "he thinks," and to insert "they think."
The House will see that the Minister, under this Bill, is obliged to provide the Council with such information and assistance as he thinks expedient for the purpose of assisting them in the discharge of their functions. As it is an Advisory Council, to which it is hoped to recruit people of substance and integrity, they should be allowed to ask from the Minister the guidance, information and help which they think it is expedient for them to receive. If people do not tell the Minister all he thinks they ought to hear, they will be fined, according to other parts of the Bill, £100, and if they go on doing it will perhaps be gaoled. The Minister, can tell the Council only what he thinks they are entitled to hear. If Government-inspired councils of this kind are to be limited in this way, people unaccustomed to great responsibility will be the only people who will agree to serve on such bodies. More and more, in provisions of this kind, we find the Minister taking the line that it is a concession on his part if he gives information, that the general public, who are the masters of the Minister, and the travelling public, are

not entitled to be furnished with information, and that even councils of this kind can only be told what is thought to be good for them to hear. If I may draw a parallel between some of the things which have happened in our Food Debates and this provision, I would say that when the Minister of Food refuses to tell the House, or the people, the essential facts and figures relating to food supplies we are not altogether surprised, because the Minister had at one time a close association, as his first lieutenant, with Sir Oswald Mosley in his early Fascist days——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that that has nothing at all to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order. The statement made by the hon. Gentleman that the Minister of Food had an association with Sir Oswald Mosley in his Fascist days is completely false and untrue. There is no truth whatsoever in that statement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) cannot accuse another Member of making an untrue statement. I would ask him to withdraw the word "untrue."

Mr. Blackburn: I bow to your Ruling, Sir, but may I, with great respect, raise this as a very serious point of Order? A very serious charge has been made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), a charge which I know to be untrue, and which many Members on this side of the House know to be untrue. It is a disgraceful charge. I am prepared to withdraw any words imputing a desire by the hon. Gentleman to tell a falsehood, but I am not prepared to withdraw the statement that what the hon. Gentleman said was a monstrously untrue thing to say.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot ask the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) to withdraw; that must rest with him. I will only say that what he said was most undesirable.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd rose——

Mr. Scollan: On point of Order. Does your Ruling mean, Sir, that any Member of this House can get up and tell a most abominable lie?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman himself is now out of Order. I must ask him to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Scollan: I was asking for your Ruling, Sir, on a point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member cannot raise a point of Order until he has withdrawn the statement he made.

Mr. Scollan: I was asking a question, not making a statement.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member made a very definite statement that was un-Parliamentary and, that being so, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Scollan: I will withdraw it, Sir, but may I pursue my point of Order? I want elucidation, I want to know where we stand. Is it your Ruling that a monstrous untruth can be told in the House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can I come in on the party now?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I appreciate the difficulty of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), but a Member must not make charges in that form.

Mr. Scollan: I want to know exactly where I stand.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: On the wrong foot.

Mr. Scollan: I want to know whether a statement can be made by any Member, including myself, that is grossly untrue.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Shortly, the answer is "Yes," provided it is not un-Parliamentary.

Mr. Blackburn: Would it be in Order for me to say to die hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) that he has been closely associated with Franco and Fascist Spain?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order, and is out of Order.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful for this chance of being able to reintroduce myself into the discussion. I want to put my remarks in perspective. The hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), with a fury equal to his interest in atomic matters, and a lack of accuracy,

charged me with saying something 1 did not say. I was at pains to say—and I said it deliberately, in the hope that we might learn the truth—that the Minister of Food was associated with Sir Oswald Mosley in his early pre-Fascist days——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it is quite undesirable to say that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It has been said a great deal inside and outside this House, and it would be most interesting some time to hear exactly what the association was. I must claim the right to make plain what I said. I said that—and for the purposes of the record I would like to say it again—and that is all I did say. As to what was said against me by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), who accused me of telling an abominable lie, may I tell him that the last time that was said in the House was by Mr. Beckett, who was associated both with the Minister of Food and Sir Oswald Mosley in the same party?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I suggest that we should get on with the Debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Keenan: On a point of Order. Would it be in Order to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) whether the other observation, made about him by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), was right or not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are not discussing the hon. Gentleman's record, or his past. We are discussing an Amendment, and it would be to the advantage of the House if we got back to it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The cause of the slight excitement which, considering the weather, has been conducted in a very amicable way, was my saying that when certain Ministers refuse facts and figures, some of us are not surprised because of their totalitarian background. But when it comes to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, or the 'noble Lord who is his chief, we are a little more surprised, because we remember that the noble Lord's background was desertion from the Liberal Party when they looked like doing badly, and joining with the Socialists when they were on the up-grade. I think we are entitled,


in view of the more liberal background of those Ministers, to expect some information from them for the benefit of this Council. I think we are entitled to say that the Minister shall provide the Council with such information as the Council think expedient for the purpose of assisting them to discharge their functions. I hope that the extraneous matter which has been so freely introduced into the Debate by hon. Members on all sides, including me—it is a good thing to enliven the Debate from time to time—will not divert the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary from the undoubted merits of this limited Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to second the Amendment.
I will preface my remarks by saying that, although this provision of the Bill is an odd one, it is not surprising, since this is a very odd Bill. This provision is another example of the thoughtless and ill-considered phraseology with which the Bill is filled. I do not complain of the phraseology so much as of the fact that the Parliamentary draftsmen who are responsible for it have been so rushed, with so many equally obnoxious Bills, that they have been, obviously, in a harassed state of mind, and have not yet been able to get proper and easily understandable phraseology, or intelligent phraseology, to denote their meaning. Obviously, the meaning of this provision is as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), that is, that the Council, who want the information, should go to the Minister and say, "This is the information we want, this is the assistance we need." It must be obvious to hon. Members that it would be ridiculous that the Minister should hold himself to be the Pooh-Bah of all knowledge, the fountain-head of all wisdom, and should say, "You ought to know this, and therefore, I will give you this information." Surely, the House will not allow an essentially stupid provision of this sort to remain unamended.
The change proposed in the Amendment is necessary. I think I see the dawn of good sense and intelligence in the Parliamentary Secretary's expression, which is so different from the grim and menacing expression of the Attorney-General. I believe that if I sat down now, the

Parliamentary Secretary would rise and say that he accepts the Amendment; but I do not intend to sit down now. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford has made certain assertions about the Advisory Council, about which we all hold different views. Personally, I do not think very much of the Advisory Council, especially with the last provision of Subsection (2) left in. But one must give the Council some justification for existence, some raison d'être, something to get their teeth into. If they are simply to sit around in armchairs and wait for the Minister, in his discretion, to tell them what assistance he proposes to give them, that will be denying all identity, all independence and all reason for existence to the Council. If the Advisory Council are to be formed, they should at least be given something to do, and should suggest to the Minister what help and information they need. The Council are the best judges of that. The present Minister has great capacity, although I wish he would use it on more beneficial objects, and net attempt to destroy the possibility of the success of our air services; but if we regard the Council as having any justification for existence, undoubtedly we must charge them with the responsibility of securing from the Minister what, in their judgment, they need. It the House accepts this Amendment, it will be giving vitality to the Advisory Council and will be giving the Council something which will be of enormous benefit, not only to the Council, but to the people who will be looking to them for assistance. If the Amendment is rejected, the Advisory Council will be one more unnecessary and useless appendage to the Minister.

Major Bruce: It is indeed a pity that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) saw fit to introduce a theme into the discussion of this provision, a theme which can only have been introduced for the purpose of providing material for his own Press, with which he becomes intoxicated from time to time. I say that because I think there is a good deal of cause for misgiving in this particular Clause. Obviously, the, most desirable words to be inserted in the Clause, in the ordinary way, would be the words '' are expedient for the purpose of assisting the Council to discharge their functions." It should imagine, however, that the insertion of the word "are ' before the word "expedient"


would have involved certain legal difficulties or ambiguity, which it would be desirable in the normal course of events to avoid.
I think the safest words to insert here are those words which bring the responsibility squarely upon Parliament. I believe that in this Subsection the responsibility is thrown squarely on the Minister and, in being thrown squarely on the Minister, is made the ultimate responsibility of the House. It is surprising to me that hon. Members opposite, who have lately become the champions of the ordinary people, should suggest in any way that a very important point of this kind should be taken out of the control of the House. If the words are left as they are in the Subsection, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford will have adequate opportunity, when his political spleen has died down considerably, to raise the matter intelligently as and when the occasion arises. Therefore, I shall resist the Amendment.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I am rather more confused about the Amendment now than I was when the Debate began. I have done my best to see what substance there is in it, but despite the illuminating speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and the intervention that followed, I have not succeeded in discovering any substance. The Amendment seems to me to fall down for two reasons. In the first place, the Advisory Council may not know what information is desirable for the purpose of their inquiries; they will not know for which information they ought to ask; and therefore, the duty should not properly be put upon them. Secondly, they might easily ask for information which was irrelevant to their purpose, or which it was undesirable for them to receive, and under this Amendment the Minister would be obliged to supply it to them. Under this Amendment they might, for example, ask for Cabinet conclusions which they thought were necessary for their purpose but which were, in fact, quite irrelevant.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it intended- to appoint quite such silly people as that?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir, but I must deal with the Amendment as it stands literally and grammatically, and the conclusion

would be a reasonable one as it stands. There is nothing in this Amendment which says that, notwithstanding the Amendment, the Privy Counsellor's oath shall stand. I think that is a valid objection to the Amendment and, furthermore, if the Council should take the view that the Minister has not supplied them with information with which he ought properly to supply them, they can easily point this out in their annual report, which has to be laid before Parliament. It will thus become common knowledge and can be raised in this House. In those circumstances, I do not think the Minister is likely to withhold information which the Council ought properly to have.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 27, line 17, at the end, to insert:
' (7) the draft of any Order proposed to be made under this Section shall not be submitted to His Majesty until it has lain before each House of Parliament for a period of forty days; and if within that period either House of Parliament resolves that the draft be not submitted to His Majesty, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the laying before Parliament of a new draft.
In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
This Amendment fulfils an undertaking given in Committee upstairs and means that an Order under Clause 36 will be made the subject of a negative Resolution in Parliament.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We on his side of the House welcome this action on the part of the Government, which shows their own good sense in this limited matter, and also the watchfulness of the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 42.—(Power to appoint special constables.)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 32, line 3o, after "premises", to insert "aforesaid."
This is not a contentious Amendment but is purely a drafting alteration made necessary by a previous Amendment to the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.—(Notices)

Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to move, in page 34, line 23, after "if", to insert "the Minister is satisfied that.'
In one way this is a comparatively small point, but, on the other hand, it is of substantial importance and we move this Amendment because we wish to ensure that the Minister himself shall be the person responsible for making sure that it has not been practicable, after reasonable inquiry, to ascertain the name or address of any owner, lessee or occupier. We do not want this matter to be left to some official who may have carried out ordinary routine work and then decided that it was not practicable perhaps because a notice may have come back marked "Owner gone away," or something of that kind, so that in fact, a proper inquiry has not been made. It should be the responsibility of the Minister that he himself should be satisfied that all reasonable inquiries have been made. When this point was raised m Committee upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would have a form of words considered in order to give effect to the principle of this Amendment. We were disappointed to find that there was no Amendment down in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary implementing that undertaking. We hope that as we have put down this Amendment once again, drawn attention to this point and reminded the Parliamentary Secretary of his promise, we may have the Amendment accepted or, if the words are found to be unsuitable, that we may be told why they are not suitable and what form of words would be acceptable for inclusion. I hope we may have this matter put right now in accordance with the undertaking given in Committee.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: This Amendment is really completely misconceived. I must be careful to avoid any personalities about this matter because I know that hon. Members opposite think they have a complete monopoly of the right to be personal. Very often the thin veneer of courtesy on the other side breaks down and hon. Members pen-nit themselves, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr.

Lennox-Boyd) did on the last occasion when we were discussing this Bill, to be grossly offensive. On that occasion the attack was directed against me personally, but I do not worry about that kind of thing. I try to restrict my observations to the subject matter under discussion and not to include extraneous matters. As I have said, this Amendment is completely misconceived. We gave an undertaking that we would look at the Amendment again and further consideration has confirmed us in cur view that this proposal would not even achieve what I venture to think hon. Members probably seek to do.
Ministers cannot act personally in regard to every matter which comes before them, and if that is what this Amendment is intended to achieve—although I do not know whether it is—it is, in my submission, a most undesirable principle to seek to establish in a matter of this kind. On the contrary, one ought to seek to preserve the constitutional position that a Minister acts through the Department over which he presides, and that he is responsible, both legally and politically, for the actions and decisions taken by his Department. One of our most distinguished judges, during a case of which I made a note for the purposes of this Amendment, said the other day:
In the administration of Government in this country the functions which are given to Ministers, and constitutionally properly given to Ministers because they are constitutionally responsible, are functions so multifarious that no Minister could ever personally attend to them.
Quite obviously no Minister could be expected personally to attend to every matter of this kind, but the real and fundamental fallacy underlying this argument is that the test whether it is practicable or not to ascertain the name and address of an owner ought, surely, to be an objective test and not the subjective one of whether the Minister is satisfied that it is practicable or not. I daresay that Tory Ministers might be very easily satisfied, but others might take a different view.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Some Ministers are self-satisfied.

The Attorney-General: All Tory Ministers are always very self-satisfied; they may have very little reason for being so, but they are. We really must not attempt


to substitute for the fact that a thing is or is not practicable the opinion of a particular Minister who happens to be office at a particular time. If there is a doubt as to whether a particular address could or could not have been ascertained, it should be settled by the courts and not by the ipse dixit of some particular Minister. In view of those considerations I would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment whether he is willing to withdraw it?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: After listening to this very interesting Debate, I am bound to say that the arguments of the Attorney-General have persuaded me that it would be wise that we did not press the Amendment. I think the argument he put forward is the right one, that every action by a servant of a Minister is one for which the Minister must automatically be held responsible. It would be a danger to introduce two sorts of procedure, one of which might lead to the view that there were certain things for which the Minister was not responsible. It might increase the bureaucratic and totalitarian tendencies which we all wish to avoid in maintaining our old constitutional position.
If it had not been for the fact that during the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary had said that this was a good Amendment and had added very politely that he would find a form of words to give effect to it, I should not have thought this to be an Amendment which should be discussed. The Parliamentary Secretary then stated:
I have got the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will have a form of words considered in order to give effect to the principle of his Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th June, 1946; C. 560.]
I am now persuaded by the greater knowledge of constitutional authority possessed by the Attorney-General that the principle of the Amendment is really bad, and I would ask my hon. Friend not to press it.

Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the explanation which has been given by the Attorney-General, which he was unable to give us in the Committee upstairs, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 49.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 35, line 23, to leave out "allowances," and to insert:
reasonable allowances in respect of expenses properly incurred in the performance of the duties of any office.
We had an interesting discussion in the Committee about the allowances claimed in business. The discussion opened my eyes to a great many practices of which I was not aware, in my innocence. In the light of that discussion we have felt it desirable to alter the definition of "allowances" in order to make it clear that these are only reasonable allowances in respect of expenses properly incurred in respect of the duties of an office. We were told about £60 being claimed for one night in Lisbon, and so on——

The Attorney-General: For one night?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, for one night for two persons in Lisbon, not in Brighton. We have therefore felt it desirable to make it clear in the Bill that any allowances paid must be properly returned. I think that will be readily accepted by the House, and I need only say that whatever allowances are paid will be examined by Income Tax inspectors from their own point of view. They do not necessarily accept the word of the claimant. This will be a double safeguard to ensure that allowances paid are wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties of an office.

Captain Crookshank: The Amendment raises a point which keeps coming up in these Bills. I would like the Minister to have these words considered again. I understand, although I was not there, that there was an interesting discussion in the Committee on the matter. We had what was no doubt a similar discussion during the proceedings on the Coal Bill. The question of allowances came up, indeed, only yesterday, on an Amendment sent down from another place on the subject, and oddly enough, the words which we inserted in the Coal Bill contained a reference to "remuneration or allowances." Under the definition in the Bill we are now considering, remuneration is the same as allowances.

Mr. Thomas: It includes allowances.

Captain Crookshank: What else does it include? Salaries?

Mr. Thomas: Mr. Thomas indicated assent.

Captain Crookshank: I want these words to be looked at by the draftsmen again with a view to some kind of concerted arrangement being come to for all these Bills. It will be far more satisfactory. The Minister may not know that his colleague the Minister of Town and Country Planning is examining this problem. Last Friday he said that he would very gladly look at the whole matter again. The Minister of Fuel and Power had to look at the same matter as recently as yesterday in connection with his Bill. I hope the Minister will look at the matter again in connection with the Bill we are discussing. There is a growing feeling that allowances as such are undesirable. The Attorney-General knows more than I do about Income Tax law but I think that, generally speaking, allowances are tax free, as opposed to salary. That is bad.
On the other hand, there is every reason to hold the view that reasonable expenses, as such, should be allowed. Reasonable expenses properly incurred are not the same as allowances. That is where I object to these words. From what the Minister said, they appear to include expenses, but allowances are not expenses. They are a global figure out of which expenses may come. They are not necessarily the same figure as the different items of expenses added together. Ministers must be aware that there can be travelling allowance, subsistence allowance, entertainment allowance, or whatever it might be, of £200 or £300, or whatever the figure might be. If one kept a detailed account and added up the actual items they would not necessarily come up to the figure of the allowance. That is the point which I make. I think the Public Accounts Committee are agreed that if expenses are incurred, they should be refunded. That is not the same thing as an allowance, because of the gap that might exist between the two, a difference which inures, of course, to the advantage of whoever draws the allowance. There is a further point that the Air Transport Advisory Council are to be paid, under Clause 36, and the Schedule, by remuneration. As the Bill now stands, the members of the Council are to have an annual salary but, under

an Amendment which we shall reach later, they are to have remuneration instead of annual salary. I think that means that there is to be no salary but merely an allowance. [An HON. MEMBER: "No.''] It is not at all clear.

Mr. Thomas: They will receive a salary and an allowance in respect of expenses properly incurred in the performance of duties. The Amendment will restore the original form of the words.

Captain Crookshank: I do not wish to anticipate another discussion, but the Amendment does not appear to do anything of the kind. If we take out "annual salary" and insert "remuneration" that does not appear to me to cover the point. There is no reason to suppose that "remuneration" means "annual salary."

Mr. Thomas: This Amendment says:
Remuneration includes reasonable allowance.

5.30 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: This is the definition Clause, and it is important that it should mean what the Minister wants it to mean. I am asking the Government to insert these words now and to examine the whole matter later on, in the light of other Bills, with the object of arriving at some sort of codified form of words to be inserted into other Bills and so avoid all this discussion, in which I have taken part about seven times in the last few months. It is very wearisome to me and for everybody else. Just as we have codified recently the whole question of Orders in Council, Prayers and negative Resolutions, so I hope the Government will set their advisers and experts to this problem and determine exactly what is wanted. The definition should be so clear that everybody will know exactly what is involved, bearing in mind the great reluctance of the House to give any tax-free emoluments at any time to anybody. While the House is ready to pay reasonable expenses incurred it is not prepared—I am speaking for Members on all sides, as is evidenced from reports of Committees upstairs—to see, under the guise of allowances, more money than expenses going to individuals who will thus have some more or less tax-free income. While I do not object to the Amendment, I hope the Government will give a pledge to look at the matter, and, if necessary, make


further Amendments in the Bill at a later stage.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not know what bearing this point may have on this Bill, but I want to comment on the general question involved. The Government will be well advised, in the definition Clause, to make a very clear definition between what they regard as allowances and what they regard as remuneration I am speaking from a different point of view from that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, though I say so without any intention to depreciate the importance of the argument he advanced. I speak as one who has been, several times, a Member of a Select Committee of this House, requested by the House to consider whether the holder of a particular office was or was not disqualified from election to this House. We have been compelled—I think it is fair to say—most reluctantly on several occasions to hold that a man was, in fact, disqualified although he held an office in which he discharged public services with no real benefit to himself, and in circumstances which did not make him amenable more than other people to the Executive, but which, nevertheless, technically, because the Act under which he was appointed talks about remuneration, made him the holder of an office of profit under the Crown. It would be improper on this occasion, and I do not want to, to embark on a discussion on the general principle, but on all these occasions the Government ought to make up their mind whether the payment involved is to be only a reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses involved in the discharge of a public duty, or whether what is involved is payment for services rendered, because the two things are different in quality and legal effect It is wrong for a definition Clause to use a phrase like "remuneration or expenses" which blurs the distinction between two quite different things. I do not know what the importance of this may be to this Bill, hut the general principle involved is one to which the Government might well give attention both on this Bill and on other Bills where the point may arise.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary intend that the officials or the executives of the

corporations will be given a lump sum in the form of an expenses account for the year, or will they have to put in an expenses sheet after each trip? If a director travels on behalf of the corporation to North Africa, will he come back and put in his expenses sheet in detail as it is done in business these days?

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the Attorney-General whether if a Member of Parliament took an office, perhaps as a secretary or a pilot in any of these corporations, that Member of Parliament would in his opinion be regarded as disqualified along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman)? I might be offered a job as general secretary to the B.S.A.A., which would be nice. Would I lose my seat——

Captain Crookshank: Nice for whom?

Mr. Bowles: It might not be nice for the House if I were not here. Can the Attorney-General give us some indication on this point? Hon. Members on all sides of the House are interested in aviation, and some of them might be offered a small managerial job or a job as a director in one of the corporations. In view of what has been said, would they lose their seats in the House?

Sir W. Wakefield: I wish to put one question to the Attorney-General. I support the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in his request for a clearer definition of this whole question. We all know that sometimes there is a flat rate of allowance for people going away on duty. Frequently that allowance is inadequate for the expenses incurred, but if people are fortunate enough in being able to stay with somebody, and do not incur those expenses, nevertheless, they put in that allowance and, quite rightly, make out of it. But frequently, because there is a Hat rate of allowance people are badly out of pocket, and I think that is unsatisfactory. What we want to know is whether the actual expenses incurred will be the reimbursements permitted. What are the exact definitions of an allowance and art expense? It seems to me the whole question of the definition of an allowance and of an expense is being muddled up and confused. There ought to be a much clearer statement whether an allowance means an exact reimbursement of an expense, or is a flat rate to cover approxi-


mately what a person might spend, whether or not he does so.

The Attorney-General: To deal first with the short point raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) on the question of the holding of an office of profit, in my view an appointment as a pilot or any other appointment under the boards of the corporations would not constitute the holding of an office of profit under the Crown. These appointments are not made by the Crown, or by a Minister on behalf of the Crown, but quite independently by the corporations concerned. The position in the case of members of the Board appointed by the Minister is entirely different. We may have some discussion on that on a later Amendment. But on the specific case put to me, it can be answered quite confidently that if the hon. Member were offered a position of this kind he would be free to take it, and still give us the benefit of his services.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have an Amendment on the Order Paper to leave out paragraph 4 of the First Schedule. It was in order to elicit this point that we put that down. There is now no need to move it.

The Attorney-General: There is no doubt whatever that under the Statute of Queen Anne members of the Boards would be disqualified. May I come to the more general points raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). I have listened with great sympathy to the views expressed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we shall certainly look at the wording of the Clause again, in order to bring it into line with other Bills which are being considered by the House dealing with similar matters. It is, of course, most important and desirable that when we are dealing with similar matters in different Bills we should seek to use exactly the same language. We will, therefore, look at it from that point of view.
So far as the definition of "remuneration" is concerned, I have no doubt that, as the Clause stands with the present Amendment, the term "remuneration"—which is, of course, an exceedingly wide term—includes annual salary. It includes also the question of allowances. "Allowance" is a descriptive term sometimes

used to cover particular items of expenditure, and sometimes to cover the case where a fair estimate is made in advance of the probable total of items of expense which, taken one by one, would he admissible for Income Tax purposes. It is a global estimate in advance of what it is thought the expenditure is likely fairly to amount to. I say "fairly" because it is a fair estimate from the point of view of the Income Tax authorities, and they only accept it and pass it without further examination if they come to the conclusion that it is a fair estimate.
However, it is perfectly true, as was said—and it is a matter which gives all of us a great deal of concern, by no means only in relation to these public corporations—that sometimes the practice of making global allowances in this way is used to escape taxation which ought properly to be paid. Large allowances are paid which are really intended to be remuneration for services rendered, and small salaries are paid. Taxation is paid on the salary and is escaped on the allowance. That is one of the reasons why in this Amendment we have provided that only such allowances as have been approved by the Treasury may be paid in these cases, because that will provide not the only safeguard, but an additional safeguard to make sure that if these corporations in particular cases—this is a matter of internal management for them—decide to make global allowances, they shall be allowances which merely represent a fair estimate of the itemised expenditure. Sometimes, of course, the allowance may, as it turns out, be a little more than the total sum of the itemised expenditure, if one examined it all and vouched for every particular item and added it up at the end; sometimes, as the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W, Wakefield) has quite rightly pointed out, it may turn out that the global allowance fixed is much less than the itemised expenditure which has actually been incurred by the person in receipt of the allowance. If in such a case the term of his employment is that he is to be paid his salary plus a fixed allowance, then I am afraid he would have to accept the fixed allowance as full reimbursement for the larger expenditure which, in fact, he had incurred. It is a matter of contract between him and his employers in a particular case.
However, the purpose of the Clause, as at present amended, is to make sure


that it these corporations follow the practice which is so common in ordinary commercial life of paying allowances rather than insisting that every single item for taxicab fares, for letters, and so on, should be separately vouched; if they follow that practice, the allowances which in fact they pay shall be such as satisfy the Treasury, and as pass the Income Tax authorities, and as represent not payment for services rendered but merely a fair estimate in advance of the probable items of expenditure which, if separately itemised, would be allowable for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. S. Silverman: Then my right hon. and learned Friend would no doubt agree that, in that case, the phrasing of the Bill ought clearly to indicate that? I remember one very famous case before the Select Committee where it was quite clearly shown on the evidence that the man involved actually lost money by the public service that he rendered; that he lost far more in wages than he received in allowances; and yet the fact that the Act under which he rendered his service described the payment as remuneration compelled us to hold—fantastic as we believed it to be—that he was holding an office of profit under the Crown.

5.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The words used in the Statute of Queen Anne are, I think, those words which my hon. Friend has just used—"office of profit"—and I would not be prepared to say now, off the book, even in the case quoted by my hon. Friend, that if what he was paid was not termed an allowance but expenses, and he was paid the actual expenses that he incurred, even that might not constitute a profit for the purposes of the Act of Anne. I do not think that we would escape the difficulty merely by using in this Bill the word "expenses" rather than the word "allowances." I think this is a matter which we have to consider, as indeed we have undertaken to consider it, in relation to all these questions affecting offices of profit with a view, later on—I must not make any pronouncement as to possible legislation—to considering whether we can do something to alter the present exceedingly unsatisfactory state of law about the offices of profit.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 50.—(Application to Scotland.)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 36, line 24, at the end, to insert:
(c) in Subsection (5) of Section twenty-nine, the words from ' Notwithstanding ' to the end of the Subsection shall be omitted.
I move this Amendment with some diffidence because it is one to the, Scottish Adaptation Clause, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has inescapable duties in Edinburgh today. This is a consequential Amendment to a previous Government Amendment as the First Schedule in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act does not apply to Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 51.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, on page 39, line 41, to leave out from "section," to the end of line 17, on page 40.
This Amendment is consequential on the deletion of Subsection (6) of Clause 28 which was accepted on recommittal. The reference now in Clause 51 to Subsection (6) of Clause 28, therefore, has no meaning, and as we do not wish to have meaningless words in the Bill, we seek its deletion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I beg to move, in page 40, line 20, at the end, to insert:
and Subsection (5) of the said Section twenty-nine shall have effect as if the words from ' Notwithstanding,' to the end of the Subsection were omitted.
This is similar to my penultimate Amendment because the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, does not apply to Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Supplementary provisions as to the three corporations.)

Mr. Mikardo: I beg to move, in page 43, line 7, after "such," to insert "in a full-time executive capacity."
On Monday last a number of my hon. Friends and myself had some little difference with the Government on some of the terminology of the Bill, and the issue was one which appeared to be by no means clear to those hon. Gentlemen on both sides who have not had the advantage of sitting through this Bill in Committee. In spite of the efforts made both from the


Front Benches and the back it was quite clear that there were many hon. Gentlemen who have not completely followed the pros and cons of the argument. That is not altogether surprising. Often when I have sat and listened to a Debate on the Report stage of a Bill on which I have not sat in Committee, I have found extreme difficulty in following the trend of the difficult arguments which arise out of pledges or discussions in Committee. Indeed, I have admired and envied the ease with which hon. Gentlemen who had had that benefit were able to deal with them.
The present Amendment would ensure that no such difficulty could possibly arise. The words which it proposes to insert are in the clearest and most unequivocal terms. No one need be in any doubt as to the purport and intention behind the Amendment, even had he not had the benefit of hearing the many arguments—and there were many—for and against this proposal in Committee. Following the long Debate that took place in Committee, the Amendment was defeated by a single vote. It was rather fortuitous, because some of the supporters of the Amendment were away, like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), compulsorily away at Bikini, and others were inadvertently away because of confusion which arose over the announcements of the Government as to the hours at which we were to sit. The Government must congratulate themselves on their good fortune and perspicacity. In the Division which took place in Committee, and on which the Government were successful by a single vote, right hon. and hon. Members opposite abstained—if I may be allowed to say so without offence—with less justification than in any other abstention I have seen, because the issue was so clear. I feel sure they were torn between the inescapable logic of the arguments for the Amendment on the one hand, and their interest in big directors on the other. No doubt they will follow the same line now. It is for them to reconcile their action with their consciences.
There are three principal reasons why my hon. Friends and I urge this Amendment, which we believe to be of fundamental importance not only to the aviation industry, but in setting a precedent for many other industries which are being nationalised and which will be nationalised

in the next 20 years of the life of this Government. The first of these reasons is that the Amendment is necessary in order to infuse a new spirit into the aviation corporations, and into those manning the corporations. There can be no question from what I have heard in this House and outside, that all is not well in personal relations within the British Overseas Airways Corporation. The other two corporations are new, and it is hoped that they will learn from the mistakes of their predecessor. While there are always some frictional difficulties between directors and employed personnel, especially technical personnel who, to be fair, are liable to have funny moments of their own—the degree of friction between British Overseas Airways Corporation and the best people they employ is really abnormal. There has never been a single occasion in the history of our major airline operators, right through the history of B.O.A.C. and before that in the history of Imperial Airways, in which the important technicians employed in the air and on the ground were satisfied about the efficiency and direction of the corporation's affairs at the top executive level. It was common talk amongst all the employees of the corporation that up at the top there was a racket.
People in the industry feel that they need more than anything else at the moment a clean start right through the corporations. It can only start at the top level—a sense that here are people setting out to make sure that this great new enterprise is successful, and who are willing to stake their own reputations and careers on their ability to make it successful. Talk to any pilot in B.O.A.C., to any ground engineer, to any operational executive, to any of the major executive personnel, and they will all tell the same story—that civil aviation has been cursed for the last 20 years by being run by men as a spare-time occupation, and cursed by being run by men who already sit on the boards of aviation companies concurrently with five, six or seven seats on the boards of other undertakings not connected with aviation, financial undertakings, commercial undertakings, and general undertakings. There is a wide spread and deep seated feeling that while the employees, quite properly, stand the risk that if they fall down on their jobs they will be thrown out and, quite properly, have their careers prejudiced by


any reprehensible behaviour on their part, above them there are men whose interest in aviation is one-fifth, one-sixth, or one-seventh of their total interest and income and who can fall down on the job without suffering any inconvenience except that of dropping off one of seven boards to find a seat on another. They only have to make one change in one more letterhead, and perhaps have the further embarrassment of appearing in the New Year's Honours List.
The employees have to stake their reputation, their careers, and their future on doing the job while they are led by men, some of whom do not have to burn their boats, and who in fact have nothing tremendous to gain by the enterprise being a success, and nothing serious to lose by its failure, because they can dash from one interest to another. Nothing else would give a, greater fillip to employees in aviation than saying to them, "For the first time you are to have people running this industry who have the courage to stake their future on the chances of making a success of the industry." There would be a new leadership, a new reaction and a new upsurge of endeavour.
The second reason we have for this Amendment is that without it this Bill is not that complete departure from the Swinton plan which we were promised, which it was the policy of this party to make, and which the Government have represented it to be. It is possible to vitiate any policy by the way in which one administers it. It is possible nominally to depart from the Swinton plan on paper, but to preserve all the features of that plan at the level of administration. This is a serious matter. I think one should be frank, and have the courage not to mince one's words. I believe there are too many people appointed to these boards whose jobs contain an element of compensation. That is the one thing which, in the name of efficiency and smooth working, we cannot afford. I do not mind who the man is, and I do not mind if the list of members of a corporation looks like a page out of Debrett, so long as they are appointed on their merits and they are appointed full-time, with no other activities, staking their future on the job.
6.0 p.m.
What have we got? At the moment we have not got anything like it, unless

this Amendment is carried. Some of these jobs contain an element of compensation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not get up and ask, "Which?" because we were told on Monday that we were not allowed to mention people and to criticise people. I wish to say, in general terms, as I said on Second reading, that if this is supposed to be a new deal for the aviation industry, when I look at the list of the people appointed to run this new deal I feel that the pack ought to be shuffled, cut and re-dealt all over again. It does not look like a new deal when one takes the per sonalities into account.
The third and most important reason why we put down this Amendment is that, without it, there is some confusion between the policy making function in running aviation and the administrative function in running aviation. It is the first principle of scientific management that the function of making policy shall be carefully separated from the function of executive administration. It is a well known principle that part-time bodies of a deliberative nature are excellent at making policy. I feel that this is a part-time body of a deliberative nature, and that it makes a good job of laying down policy. It is equally held as a general principle that part-time bodies of a deliberative nature are totally inefficient in administration. If the Government insist, as apparently they are insisting, for reasons which I think I shall be able to describe in a moment, on part-time personnel on these corporations, it can only be, if they know anything about the principles of management, because they consider that these bodies should have some some of policy making function. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary has said that.
Here we have a situation different from that to be found in a case of a board of directors of a private company, where a board of directors has to be a policy making organisation and then has to "hive off" into a number of individuals in order to execute that policy eruditely. But here the policy mechanism is the Ministry of Civil Aviation. If it does not make policy, what do we have it for? In the few months the Minister has held his office he has undoubtedly strengthened the personnel at the top level in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. He has done wonders in that direction in


the short time he has had at his disposal. But if these boards are to lay down His Majesty's Government's policy on civil aviation, what are all these eminent gentlemen in the Ministry to do? I put it to the House that the Ministry must be the only policy making mechanism, and that, therefore, the function of the corporations themselves is to carry out the policy laid down. If they are to carry it out they must be executive. If they are to be executive they must be at the end of the eternal telephone all day, during working hours. We cannot make do with any dilettante handling of problems of that nature.
I think I could tell the House in advance, and I intend to be daring enough to presume to do so, what arguments the Parliamentary Secretary will advance against this Amendment. That is not very clever of me, because he has advanced these arguments before. I can make his speech for him, not so eloquently and not nearly so eruditely, but I think I can forecast the contents. I think that he will adduce, against this Amendment, five arguments. First, he is going to say that this is a deliberative body. That is a point to which I have already given the answer. If he says that, I shall ask him what sort of deliberations he and his Minister are to carry out if the corporations are to do some deliberating. Secondly, he will endeavour to draw a comparison between these corporations and the Court of the Bank of England. He will say that we nationalised the Bank of England and did not insist on having full-time executive directors of the Bank. It will be obvious to the House that in making such comparisons one has to take account of the difference in circumstances. One has to make this comparison, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary would put it, mutatis mutandis. The fact is that there are a lot of mutatis in this comparison. In the case of the Bank of England there is not a Minister whose sole or overwhelmingly major function is to lay down policy for that public corporation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has many functions which have nothing to do with the Bank of England. In the case of aviation, we have a Ministry which has almost nothing else to do but to supervise these corporations and lay down policy. Since the Ministry is to do

the policy making the corporations need only be executive.
A better parallel is with the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the major part of the function of which is to supervise the work of the Coal Board. Quite properly, the Coal Board has been chosen on the basis of a number of specialised full-time executives, each with his own functions. There are a couple of gentlemen, distinguished in the trade union world, to look after labour relations, a distinguished physicist to look after general questions of research, a distinguished mining engineer, etc., sitting together as a board to work out the policy laid down by the Government. If that is right for coal, when there is the policy making mechanism in the Ministry, it is equally true for aviation.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say that we are afraid that the corporations have got the wrong people on these boards, and he might say that surely if the people are the wrong ones they will do more damage full-time than part-time. I make him a present of that argument, and also a present of the reply, which is, that the wrong people will not take full-time jobs because they know that their wrongness will find them out. They know that when they have a full-time executive job they have to stand or fall by results. When they breeze into the office for an odd half hour twice a week between two others of their board meetings, the responsibility cannot be pinned on them. Fourthly, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will say he has some need of advice sometimes, and that some specialised knowledge is needed, when perhaps a new route is being opened up, etc. Any organisation, public or private, that needs advisory services of any sort, goes out and buys that advice, without necessarily putting the giver of the advice on the board. If a private company does not like the ventilation in its factory, or the Minister of Works does not like the ventilation in this building, they will go to a heating and ventilation engineer, who will spend a few months advising them on the matter. A private company would not put him on the board, and the Minister of Works would not make him a Parliamentary Secretary on that account. We do not need to clutter up a hoard of directors to get specialised knowledge.
Finally, I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will advance the argument,


unless he is put off it by my having forestalled him, that these part-time appointments are only temporary, and that we shall move towards full-time executive appointments, that the industry is in a state of flux, and for the time being he needs some assistance in this direction. I can never understand the sort of thesis which says that a proposition is absolutely awful and then says that it is not permanent anyway, or a thesis which says, "I absolutely agree with this proposal, but I will start in two years' time." That cannot possibly be right. There are no circumstances under which that can be right. I would challenge the Parliamentary Secretary on this point: Does he represent this as being purely a temporary expedient for the next two years? We were told the other day that we must not criticise people by name in this House, but we ought to be able to praise them by name in this House. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, in the case of every one of his part-time directors of corporations, why they are indispensable to him? Will he sing their praises and say, "Here is Mr. X. I don't like part-timers on the boards. We are going to get rid of them in a year or two, but here is Mr. X and these arc his qualifications which I simply must have and which cannot be fulfilled by anybody who will take on a permanent job"? If the Parliamentary Secretary will do that he may go some way towards satisfying me.
Those are the reasons which I think the Parliamentary Secretary will advance I do not think he will advance the real reason which, to be just, perhaps is not his so much as the real reason of the noble Lord. The Ministry appear to have shown an extreme level of obstinacy with regard to this matter. They have given way on many other points. This is the one upon which they appear to have been tremendously obdurate. I feel that that can only be because the Minister does not want to say to people who have been given appointments—at least partially by way of compensation for their disappointment in seeing the Swinton plan overturned—" I am sorry, lads. I thought it was on, but it is off." The real reason is just as simple as that. The Minister feels there would be a loss of personal face if accepted this Amendment. If it is the real reason then surely it is a very bad and shameful reason.

I address my final remarks to hon. Members on this side of the House. I feel sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot be very interested in this matter one way or the other. They abstained from voting upstairs and they will probably do the same thing here. The cause which I am urging at the moment may be unpopular. I think the Division list will show that it is an unpopular cause in the sense that it is the cause of a minority. I have the feeling that there is a tremendous issue of principle with regard to all nationalisation enshrined in this question. One day, when we see the problems involved in the administration of nationalised industries starting to work themselves out, we shall look back upon this day. When we are faced with some of the snags—there must be some snags—and we are considering the problem of putting them right, I feel that we shall look back and say, "Anyhow, there were a few people on our side who foresaw this sort of thing and who realised you have got to get an element of professionalism in the directorate of nationalised industries if you are not to run into trouble." I say to my hon. Friends on this side of the House that we have been talking about nationalisation for 40 years, and for 40 years one of the main arguments we have used in favour of nationalisation is that we mean to get rid of all "guinea pig" directors.
Here we have a Socialist Government nationalising a brand new industry, starting with a clean sheet of paper so that they can do anything they like and taking as their first nationalisation measure the step of installing into the management of this nationalised industry "guinea pig" directors. I say quite bluntly that in some cases that is precisely what they are—no more and no less. I cannot believe that any Socialist who has been campaigning earnestly for the type of nationalisation which for so long we have been urging can be indifferent to this matter and, if he wants to ensure the success of this nationalised industry—and of the nationalisation of all future industries—he cannot fail to show how strongly he feels on this matter and to impress his view upon the Government in the only way which is open to us.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Proctor: I beg to second the Amendment.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) for anticipating correctly everything that could be said by his supporters, and by the Government in their reply, in this matter. It will not be necessary for me to be anything but brief. A speech which I consider to have been one of the most brilliant delivered in this House for a considerable time contained an admission that the Ministry whose conduct was under discussion could plead guilty to only one failure, which was that they did not instantly and completely reverse the actions and the policy of their predecessors. I think that criticism might be applied to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in that we did not completely and absolutely depart from the Swinton plan as far as Socialist policy is concerned. That plan envisaged three corporations, three sets of directors, three separate and distinct organisation. It was a plan devised for the division of the financial spoils of civil aviation. I could understand the continuation of the present "set up" if we had the British European Airways Corporation operating under the railways and the railways were to operate the corporation and receive the financial benefits from that operation. I could understand a separate and distinct policy-making organisation being set up for the South American Airways Corporation if the shipping interests were to be vitally interested in the financial results of that operation.
For the purpose of operating this great national service, which the Government have decided to nationalise, we believe that it is necessary to have the policy-making organisation set up within the Ministry itself. The Minister with his expert advisers should be responsible for deciding the policy. The Minister having decided the policy, we believe that for the purpose of giving executive administration to the decisions of the Minister, the operation should be within the Ministry. We who are responsible for this Amendment feel that it is necessary to have fulltime people responsible for administration. We can see no advantage whatever in the setting up of three policy-making boards on a sparetime basis. Of necessity, that will be fairly costly and certainly it will not be efficient. We think the policy should be decided by the Minister with the aid of his expert advisers, and that these corporations should be manned by

fulltime executive directors who are responsible for carrying out that policy.
I hope the Government will give careful consideration to this matter. It is only because we feel that the whole efficiency of this organisation is at stake that we are pressing this Amendment. I believe that, almost as much as any other single action, the future of civil aviation will decide the prosperity or otherwise of the people of this country. There is no other instrument that is so likely to extend the influence of the British people all over the world as an effective and efficient civil aviation organisation. We plead with the Government to consider the proposals which we make. The policy of allowing fulltime executive people to operate on these boards is certainly a wise one. If this was the case of a small organisation, I could understand some suggestion that people would not be required on a fulltime basis; but with this vast organisation which extends all over the world there is, surely, no need whatever for spare-time personnel. We believe a spare-time director is concerned chiefly with financial interest. We do not want any financial interest being obtruded into this great service. We believe that it is the right way to operate a Socialist service, and we commend our proposals to the Front Bench and invite them to give further consideration to this matter.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The mover and seconder of this Amendment have put their arguments in a way which must commend them to the House, and I am grateful to them for speaking so cogently and logically and without heat. I trust I may be able to do the same, and that this important subject will be discussed in the manner in which it ought to be discussed. Let me say at the outset that I have a great deal of sympathy with what I conceive to be the object behind their Amendment. As I conceive it, my hon. Friends dislike "guinea-pig directors," which have been a feature of joint stock enterprise in the past. The Government feel equally keenly about that, and have no desire to see any repetition in public enterprise of these features of private enterprise. Financial considerations are certainly playing no part in the appointment of the members of these corporations. It is not for the purpose of giving extra emoluments to certain per-


sons that they have been appointed to part-time membership of the boards, and, equally, my noble Friend will not tolerate any dilettante attitude in these corporations. Members are being appointed to the boards, and will continue to be appointed, only with a view to the services which they can render.
Let me turn to the successive stages of the argument. In the first place, I must point out that, under this Bill as now drafted, the Minister can do exactly what is desired by this Amendment. It would be open to him to appoint all the members of the board on a full-time executive basis, and to insist upon that in his instrument of appointment.

Mr. Proctor: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean to convey that that is the intention?

Mr. Thomas: No, I am building up an argument. Just as I did not intervene during the speeches of my hon. Friends, I hope I may now be allowed to develop my argument, when, I think, the point will be covered. The first point I was about to make was that, under the Bill as now drafted, my noble Friend can appoint every member, if he so wishes, on a full-time executive basis. The Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill has been cited, but, under that Bill, it is not laid down that the members shall be appointed on a full-time executive basis. Members of the Coal Board have, in fact, been appointed on that basis, but there is nothing in the Bill to say so. In the Bank of England Act, it is laid down that no more than four members of the Court shall give their exclusive services. It would, therefore, be open to the Minister, if he so desires, to appoint every one on a full time executive basis.
My second point in the chain of argument is that the Minister has, in fact, appointed certain members already to full-time membership of the boards, and, as an earnest of what I am saying about having no dilettante directors on the boards, some of these appointments have meant considerable sacrifices on the part of those who have taken them up. In one case—I am very glad that we are not going to mention particular names tonight—a full-time member of one of these Boards has resigned the vice-presidency of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company and the vice-

chairmanship of the Gas Light and Coke Company in order to devote himself whole-heartedly to this air line corporation. In another case, a full-time member of one of these boards has sacrificed strong family and personal interests in shipping in order to give his full time to this appointment. I mention these instances to show that the Minister fully realises what the hon. Gentlemen desire, and that, to this extent, he has met them. It is true, as the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out in the argument which he was good enough to put in my mouth, that it would be embarrassing to my noble Friend if he were now to reverse that policy. In good faith with the persons concerned, in agreement with his colleagues in the Government, and, I may add, in full conformity with Labour Party policy in the past, he has made certain part-time appointments. It would. obviously, be an embarrassment to turn round and say, in the hon. Gentleman's own words, "Sorry, it is off." That embarrassment would not deter my noble Friend from doing it, however, if he felt it was advisable. He has done embarrassing things before, and he would do them again if it was necessary so to do, but he does believe that there are at the present time, and may always be, occasions where part-time directors may have a very desirable function to play and when no full-time director who was available could do the work for them.
That is the gist of the argument. For example, there may be a man of science whom it is most desirable to have on one of these boards, but who would not be prepared or able to give his full time services to the board. If he did, he would shortly cease to be a very good man of science. It is precisely because he is a good man of science that he is appointed to this post on the board. There may be, again, a trade union official whose presence on one of the boards may be very desirable for the purpose of maintaining good labour relations, yet, if he were taken full-time, he would cease to have those very qualities for which he had been appointed and would lose that contact with the trade union world which makes it so desirable to have him on the board.

Mr. Bowles: But would he be appointed by the trade unions?

Mr. Thomas: It would, obviously, be done by agreement with the trade unions. I am giving hypothetical cases, but there is a possibility of this happening I think the hon. Member for Reading misunderstood the argument used on a previous occasion, and, on the basis of what he misunderstood, made a good point when he said that the corporations can buy advice. What I had in mind was that the corporations have certain more or less defined geographical areas in which to operate, and, in the case of the South American Corporation, a business man who has connections with South America may be very desirable on that board. Equally, in the case of the corporation operating to China, it may be desirable to have a member on the board with special knowledge of that country. It is not a question of buying advice for a special reason. In the case of the South American Corporation, such a person as I have mentioned would cease to have his value on the board if he ceased to maintain his business connections with South America.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not, deliberately, want to alter my argument. All I said was that the Minister could have the trade union representative, whom he wanted to help with labour relations, and the South American business man, whom he wanted for his knowledge of the country, in a consultative capacity, which is the common practice, without their taking up seats on the board, which the Minister might want to give to fulltime executive people.

Mr. Thomas: They could be brought in in that way, but I do not think it would be nearly as good. In the majority of cases, such people would be compelled to give their services elsewhere. Most of us have to do something to earn our living, and it takes most of us nearly all our time to do it. In the case of these boards, we might be dealing with people whose time was fully occupied in doing two or three different things, and there would be no question of dilettante directors. I should like to give some examples, which I think will confirm my argument. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me for quoting examples which will be more familiar on this side of the House than on theirs. I should like to quote the case of the cooperative societies, and my hon. Friends

will not deny that the co-operative retail societies are examples of highly successful trading enterprise. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite think they have been too successful, and would like to curb them. In the case of all these societies, with only a single exception, the directors are part-time. It can hardly be denied that they have made a great success of their work. We are often exhorted to follow the example of the American airlines. I have made direct inquiries into the matter since this subject was first raised, and it is the case that the majority of directors of the three international American operators are employed on a part-time basis.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: They have the Civil Aeronautics Board.

Mr. Thomas: That is so; they have the Civil Aeronautics Board. No one can deny that they have been extremely successful in their operations. There is the gist of my argument.
I am sorry if I have not entirely followed the lines which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading thought I would follow, but I will now turn to the answers which he thought I would give. He said that I would give various reasons. One of them was that certain appointments made to this Board had been made as compensation. I can assure him, and I know he will not disbelieve me, that such a consideration has never entered my noble Friend's head. Indeed it never entered mine until my hon. Friend suggested it. In fact, if I may reveal some of the inner workings of the office, I can tell him that one of the first things which my noble Friend instructed me and his other principal advisers to do when he took office was to draw up a list of the various functions which have to be performed on the boards. It was from that angle that he tackled the matter. He wanted to get the functions settled first, and then to find the persons to carry them out. That is, in fact, how the boards have been constituted. In no case has there been any suggestion o a person being appointed by way of compensation for some previous service, or because of a disappointment.

Mr. Bowles: Will my hon. Friend tell the House, not the names, but the number of people who had already been selected and promised by Lord Swinton,


and taken over by the present noble Lord?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know whom Lord Swinton had in mind or whether they have been appointed or not, but we should not be deterred from appointing a man whom we thought desirable just because Lord Swinton had thought so also. My hon. Friend who seconded this Amendment argued that the whole Swinton plan ought to have been overthrown. Substantially, of course, the Swinton plan has been overthrown, but is my hon. Friend going to suggest that because Lord Swinton proposed to use aircraft on his services that we should not use aircraft? That is what it comes to. We are not going to reject any proposal simply because it happened to commend itself to Lord Swinton also. Each of these questions has been considered on its merits,
As another argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading said there ought to be a separation of executive functions from policy making functions. I think there is a misunderstanding in his mind about what happens in the Ministry of Civil Aviation and in the corporations. It is not possible to make a clear distinction and to say that policy belongs to the Minister of Civil Aviation and executive action or administration to the corporations. There are different kinds of policy, and each of us is, in a sense, a policy making body. We are particularly concerned with international policy. We have to negotiate treaties and attend international conferences. But even on these matters, the corporations are naturally brought in. They are brought in as advisers, and we make a special point, whenever we attend an international gathering, to take persons from the corporations with us.
The corporations, equally, have their own policy to consider, with which we are not so directly concerned—the policy of airline operation. It is a different matter from the kind of policy with which we are normally concerned, but it is still policy. Whether these corporations were publicly or privately owned, someone would have to decide this policy of airline operation, and it is on these matters of policy, the policy of airline operation as distinct from Government policy, that part-time members of the board may fulfil very useful function. The hon. Gentle-

man also said that these might only be temporary appointments, and that my noble Friend might wish to work towards full-time appointments. I can assure the House that my noble Friend intends to be guided in these matters by experience. We are in an empirical race, and my noble Friend wants to see how these things work out, and what persons are available. He will certainly not take up any attitude a priori. This Bill enables him to appoint part-time or full-time members in accordance with the exigencies of the occasion. He would be able, if it were necessary, to work towards full-time appointments. I believe that there is always a case for the part-time director, and I will close on that note.
What my hon. Friends really want is not a board at all; they want the departmental heads to get into conference round the table, but not to have a board in the sense in which that term is commonly understood. There are arguments for that; I am not going to belittle them. There are industries in which that would be the right and proper thing to do, but I do not think that this relatively new industry, which is in process of developing into a great future, is such an industry. It is very desirable to have certain persons who have contacts with the outside world and can see where this industry may develop. The departmental head, immersed in all the duties of his office, very often cannot see the wood for the trees, and it is very desirable to have a breath of fresh air brought in by someone, such as a trade union official, a man of science or a business man with connections with the outside world.
It is also very desirable to have a man of sound judgment on a large variety of matters, even though he may not have a detailed knowledge on a particular one. The experts cannot solve problems which boards of directors are commonly called upon to solve. The expert comes to a point where he is bound to say, "Here are all the facts, but I do not know what to do with them." Time and time again, in my brief period in this office, I have met that problem. Various sets of views are brought before me—the views of the experts—who then cry, "What are we to do about it?" They rely upon the Minister who is supposed to be appointed for his balanced commonsense, and such a person is called upon to decide questions on which the experts disagree.


Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will be content with the Bill as it stands at present. It allows the Minister considerable latitude. They would fetter him in his discretion, and, by imposing this fetter upon him, would prevent him getting on to the Board the most suitable people for the British airlines at the present time.

Mr. Harold Roberts: Hon. Members on this side of the House may be pardoned if they regard this little domestic quarrel with some amusement. I may say that the Parliamentary Secretary has my sympathy. Dealing with people obsessed by doctrinaire theories is always a thankless task, and I noticed how careful the Parliamentary Secretary was to jam the pill by suggesting that the part-time members of the Board would very often be trade union officials. That phrase was repeated several times. Naughty children must have plenty of jam on their medicine before they can be induced to take it. It is just as well to see where we are getting. Whether we like the socialisation of civil aviation or not, we hope that if we do have it, it will be made to work as well as possible. I entirely agree that the Minister should have full power to get the best boards he can. Hon. Members opposite must realise the hard fact that brains can impose their own terms, and that the able man who will join a board part time will very often not join it whole time or be a "tame cat." Many hon. Members opposite have been very fond of referring in disparaging terms to boards of directors, part time boards and people who collect directorships, and so forth. Those remarks sound very well indeed on platforms; they sound very well as a piece of prejudice, but do the Government give effect to such remarks when they get in contact with the realities of office? No, they do not. They have not done it wholly with the Bank of England, and they do not propose to do it with this Bill. The Government cannot escape the fact that they are having to disown in practice a vast amount of the nonsense and "hot air" talked by their back benchers and supporters in the country.
That is the issue in a nutshell. The Minister said something which is very true, but rather unpalatable to some people, namely, that we are an empirical race and we ought not to decide things

a priori. Stupid people like myself have been saying that for years, and I am very glad that my opinion has met with the august approval of the Treasury Bench.

Major Vernon: I would like to dispose of the superstition that we have just heard enunciated from the other side. It is this queer antithesis between theory and practice. Theory and practice are not things which contradict each other; they are complementary. To be of any use, a theory must take into account all the existing facts. A theory is a distillation of practice. Those of us who spend our lives in a technical occupation are aware of the difficult process of producing a sound theory and know its extraordinary convenience when it has been produced. So, to put up the rule of thumb, or the ad hoc experimental way of dealing with things, against the theorists is an entirely false and useless proceeding. We have theories, but those theories are the result of profound study, not only on our part entirely, but on the part of the great minds through the ages.
So much for that. I would now like to deal with some of the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary. We were told, first of all, that the Minister is keenly aware of the importance of not allowing outside considerations and such things as compensation, to affect his judgment. I have looked up the previous Debate on the B.O.A.C. Bill in 1939, and there I found a profound remark by one of the great pioneers of aviation, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter. When the question of appointments to the board of B.O.A.C. was under consideration, he said, addressing the Minister of that day:
I hope my right hon. Friend will not allow the corporation to be the dumping ground of ex-governors, or hangers on of any political party."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1939; Vol. 349, c. 1887.]
Looking through the list of directors, without mentioning names, we do find two ex-governors among them.
6.45 p.m.
It was pointed out that the Minister can make the members of the corporations full-time servants if he wishes, but apparently he has not wished to. What will happen? Some of them are full-time and some are not. The chairman and vice-chairman are full-time, and the rest are part-time. What do the chairman and


vice-chairman do when the other people are absent? If they have executive functions to perform, their knowledge, experience and grip of the whole organisation will increase from day to day, so that when they meet these part-time people at their occasional meetings, they will clearly outclass them in knowledge of the enterprise and will reduce them to nonentities. It is clear what was in the minds of those who were responsible for drafting this Bill, in connection with these corporations, because in paragraph 5 of the Schedule which we are considering, we find it stated:
If the Minister is satisfied that a member of the corporation has been absent from meetings of the corporation for a period longer than three consecutive months without the permission of the corporation;
or if he goes bankrupt, and so on, they may call upon him to resign.
That is the picture which was in the minds of the authorities when they designed the Bill; people may be absent for three months and it will not matter, but if their absence goes beyond that period there will be trouble. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to part-time people in the Co-operative Society. The Co-operative Society branches are mostly grocery establishments with a few other etceteras tacked on, and the committee meets once a quarter or once every half year.

Mr. Dodds: Three times a week.

Major Vernon: My hon. Friend points out that the committee meets weekly or twice-weekly. They meet for a few hours. By the nature of the undertaking, which goes on steadily from year to year, there are not many new problems to face, and it is an administrative enterprise which has been found in practice to work successfully. But the fact that it has been found to work successfully in that case is no argument that that set-up should be convenient in an entirely different concern like civil aviation.
Referring to other examples, the biggest socialised industry that we have is the Post Office. We find no part-time directors there. We have the Postmaster-General and his chief assistant, and under them are divisional directors who meet on occasions. They meet for advice and consultation. They manage quite well

without the intervention of the part-time people at all. Because we have examples of concerns which work without the intervention of part-time directors, and because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has pointed out, there are the policy-making functions of the Ministry and the executive functions which are the duty of the whole-time employees, it seems to me that there is hardly any reason at all for the boards themselves. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, there may be some embarrassment to the Minister in deciding what to do with these people who have some expectations of appointment to the board when the Bill goes through. He said that they are ready to take these jobs at considerable sacrifice. On 20th May I asked a Question of the Parliamentary Secretary about the remuneration of the members of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, and this is the reply received:
Prior to the statement of Government policy in the White Paper of December last, those members of the British Overseas Airways Corporation who are still serving, other than the Chairman, were receiving no remuneration. The revised basis of working for the three Corporations proposed under the Civil Aviation Bill will necessitate payment to all members of the Corporations with retrospective effect to 1st January last.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 29.]
It seems to me that the sacrifice need not be so heavy if these people were receiving no payment at all in the past, and they are now to receive some payment in the future. The sacrifice does not seem to be altogether too great. What could be done? We have the Advisory Council which has extended functions. It seems to me these able people, with their experience, who wish to serve in a part-time capacity, have a home already provided for them in the Advisory Council. That seems to be a very good way out of what is a rather embarrassing situation.

Mr. Bowles: I was very glad the House was so full when my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) made his speech. His speech was unanswerable. I for one certainly came to the conclusion after the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, that it was unanswerable. I only wish there had been more hon. Members on this side of the House to hear it, although there were a large number present to show where an intelligent and logical argument


will take hon. Members on this side of the House. I hope the Conservative Party will not do another "Bretton Woods." I hope they will have the courage of their convictions and decide tonight one way or the other, and not shirk their Parliamentary responsibility, as they did on that notorious occasion. During the last 12 months I happen to have had the honour to be the chairman of the civil aviation group in the Labour Party. We have met fairly regularly, and have had this matter under consideration very often. It has been under very serious consideration, because we knew the Government were likely to resist the view we were asking them to consider. We went into this matter, and came to a unanimous conclusion that this is the correct policy for the Government to pursue in regard to directors.
We have been vitally concerned to try to help the Government and the Minister to get a nationalised civil aviation in the most efficient form in which we could possibly have it. After careful consideration we have come to the unanimous conclusion that in order to have air operations conducted properly and effectively in the very best way possible, in order to make our civil aviation service a success, it is essential that we should have full-time executive directors on these corporations.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Would the hon. Member apply the same theory to the Co-operative Society?

Mr. Bowles: I am coming to the Cooperative Society. Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary was not well advised about that. The Co-operative Wholesale Society directors are full-time.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I said "retail."

Mr. Bowles: So are the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society directors. They are two of the biggest trading organisations in this country. The Parliamentary Secretary's analogy was a completely false one.

Mr. Thomas: As always, I was very careful in my language. I said "the Co-operative retail societies."

Mr. Bowles: The policy of the large executive body in England, and particularly in London, is that of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and in Scotland the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale

Society. The people are fully employed in directing the policy and operation in this country and Scotland. Therefore, I regret to say, the Parliamentary Secretary's analogy was a completely false one.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is the hon. Member saying that the Co-operative Wholesale Society in London, for example, controls the policy sent out from Manchester?

Mr. Bowles: No; all I am saying is that the directors of the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society are fully paid ladies and gentlemen. Therefore, I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary was working on a rather false basis. He did not seem to me to understand the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading to compensation so far as certain of these appointments are concerned. We have all rather forsworn mentioning who they are, but the Parliamentary Secretary referred to one of them in such detail that he is completely identifiable. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, who said he would not refer to any of them by name, referred to them as being ex-governors of certain places. The position is that compensation, in the sense in which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading used that word, has been promised by Lord Swinton, and, I believe—although I cannot prove it, I suspect it—also by the present Minister. The scheme visualised by the former Minister of Civil Aviation is going to be carried out. Therefore, the fact that these people have been promised compensation by the former Minister makes a rather embarrassing situation. In that sense "compensation" meant that they continued with their jobs.
I am certain that what is essential in an organisation of this kind is for the Minister and the Ministry of Civil Aviation to keep out of the runnng of these corporations. I think that at the present time there is a tendency to butt in too much. The Minister should not interfere too much with the working of the three corporations he proposes to set up, but should concentrate on policy. That is, our logical argument for having full-time executive directors on the operational boards. We have, as a group, come to a unanimous conclusion. Not only should we use hon. Members from this House who have knowledge of the subject, but


people from the Royal Air Force and from civil aviation. If the Minister really wants to make a success of his job, in his own interest and in the interests of the Government, he should not always try to defy what is a logical and sensible stand taken by hon. Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I respond at once to the appeal of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) that we on this side of the House should make our position plain. After all, the hon. Member has every right to make that request, for it is his Bill. It has never been denied that the Government, in the words of "The Tribune," did not want this Bill, but the Labour Party's Civil Aviation Committee forced it on them. As the hon. Member has just said, he is Chairman of the Labour Party Civil Aviation Committee; he is, presumably, the architect of this Bill, so he has every right to ask for our position. The newspapers have said that the Government were going to offer the Labour Party the Swinton plan, but owing to a revolt from the back benches opposite, led no doubt by the hon. Member for Nuneaton, they changed their minds. The hon. Member is fully entitled to ask what we would do, and what we are proposing to do on this matter.
There is a further reason why I think it incumbent upon us to make our position plain, namely, because so many of the people for whom my noble Friend Lord Swinton had asked are to be on the various Corporations I have the list here. I know nothing of what goes on behind the scenes, or the comings and goings in the brave new world appointing directors of companies and Members of His Majesty's Government. I do not for one moment imagine that a pledge given by a Conservative Minister would bind a Socialist front bench. I can only imagine that the reason they have retained so many of these people—adding, of course, as Socialists always do, a peer or two to our list of commoners—is because they think Lord Swinton chose well and wisely, and they are glad to abide by his choice.
I do not want to reduce this to a debate on this list of names of the members of the board. They have been announced publicly. In Lord Swinton's time they were, I think, announced in another place.

There is nothing secret about it. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton said, there is nothing less calculated to hide the identity of Sir Harold Hartley than the description of him as "the Vice-Chairman of the L.M.S. and the Vice-Chairman of the Gas, Light and Coke Company." I do not imagine this new form of governmental camouflage concealed the identity of the capitalists to whom the Government have. The Parliamentary Secretary must find some other form by which to obscure his views. The members who are to sit upon the various corporations as chairmen are precisely the same people who were to be chairmen under the Swinton plan. The chief executive of British European Airways was himself a director, and has been for many years, of B.O.A.C. All down that list it looks to me, without going into details, as if at least two-thirds of them have been there for quite a long time, and were as much in the mind of my noble Friend Lord Swinton as in the minds of the present Government. So much for the suggestion made.
7.0 p.m.
Our view quite definitely is this. We believe in part-time directors; we dispute absolutely the argument that permanent directors, living remote from other interests and from the great stream of national life, can give better service. We do not believe that any pilot in the world would rather work for a little segregated group of whole-time board members than for a wider board drawn from varying interests outside, who would give him better service. We are confident that good service comes from part-time work, and we reject absolutely the assumption that, in our defence of part-time directors, we are in any way anxious to retain guinea pig directors. The interest that has been shown by the Socialist Party in the number of Conservative Members who are now on the boards of great companies has not disguised the fact that a large number of members of the Socialist Party have appeared as members of many boards; if this fact has not appeared in the national Press, I suppose it is because they rely on the ultimate failure of those companies to show the source from which the directors were drawn.
In regard to the Amendment with which we are now dealing, we believe in part-time directors. We believe in people who bring in experience constantly refreshed


from other national activities—trade union leaders, scientists like Lord Rothschild, who has been appointed, and men of such experience; not people who had experience some years ago, but people whose daily life today is enabling them to keep their experience up to date. The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon), that part-time directors and whole-time directors would come into violent collision at what he seemed to imagine would be the occasional meeting on quarter day in the corridors of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, is really so grotesque as a picture of how part-time directors work, that I hope he will allow me to say without any offence that it is about time he stopped experimenting in his diet and took a few more calories.
Our view is this. The chairmen and the vice-chairmen of these corporations should be whole-time executives, but their boards should be drawn from part-time directors. As the hon. Member for Hands-worth (Mr. H. Roberts) said in one of the best short speeches I have heard in this House for many days, we welcome the lessons which the Socialist Government are now learning, and hope, for the sake of the country, that they will extend their experiences to their own back benchers.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: I also should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Hands-worth (Mr. H. Roberts), for he spoke of brains coming in on their own terms. If somebody has in his mind something to contribute to the corporations and their development, and if he has the necessary brains in the opinion of the person appointing him, surely the latter can buy that person's brains, irrespective of whether he comes on to the board or not? It is not essential for a person to become a member of the board just because he has something special to contribute. He can come in for some particular task or scientific problem that may be involved, and when that task or problem is dealt with, he can discontinue his connection with the corporation, for the time being at any rate. There is no need for him to continue as a member of the board.
In any case, the Bill has limited the number of people who can serve on the boards; that being so, it is important that each individual member shall contribute

to the utmost of his capacity, and shall be able to be present at more or less the whole of the board meetings and exert his full influence on the decisions reached by the board. The Parliamentary Secretary, replying to the mover and seconder of this Amendment, said it was open to the Minister to make full-time appointments, and I thought he spoke quite enthusiastically on that point. If he really does feel like that, why has he not appointed a full-time director? If, in the first instance, he thought that part-time members of the board would be a good thing, but has since changed his mind, due perhaps to some discussions he may have had, why has he not acceded to the suggestion contained in the Amendment we are discussing? It looks as if he has been partly persuaded, but that his hands are tied. I should have thought that when an nationalised undertaking is setting forth as this is, it should go free and spread its wings, and not have them tied behind its back.
The Parliamentary Secretary also referred to the fact that he might like to have on the board somebody who is a trade unionist who would also like to continue his association with the trade union, so that his influence with the union and the corporation would be intermixed. On more than one occasion it has been the public policy of some unions—and I believe of the T.U.C. itself—that if a person has become associated with the board of an undertaking such as this he should sever his connection with his union. I would like to know whether the suggestion the Parliamentary Secretary made lines up with present union policy in this matter. If so, it indicates that a change of policy has taken place.
There is, in the organisation of an industry, one other root principle to observe if we really want the industry to succeed, and that is, that the people at the top shall set the pace. If anything is right—or wrong, for that matter—in any large scale undertaking, time after time it is proved to be due to the people at the top. It is from that point of view that we ought to take special care of the way in which the boards of these new corporations are set up. If the men who are to be in control are to be really devoted to their task and are to approach it with the required enthusiasm, I think that they themselves would want to join in a


full-time capacity. I cannot imagine that anybody having that spirit, anybody who is really bursting with desire to see this thing a success, would want to come in on any other basis, and it is because we feel that that would be the attitude of mind that we wish to see incorporated in the Bill provision for the sort of spirit which is necessary in the leadership of these corporations.
If we take the position of part-time directors and analyse it, and see for whose benefit such people serve in large-scale industry, I think the answer would undoubtedly be that they were serving for personal benefit, so that they could hang on to all sorts of other interests away from the main interests they were expected to look after. The only other possible interest which might be served would be the interest of high finance. Neither personal interests nor high financial interests are the sort of things we want to guide people who are members of the boards of nationalised undertakings. It is suggested that it would be a good thing—and the Parliamentary Secretary has made this point—to have part-time people on the boards. What sort of time will they spend? He said it would be possible to get rid of them if they did not properly devote themselves to their task, but what power has the Minister got over these people, when in the First Schedule, in page 43, it says that only if they are absent without permission for periods longer than three months can the Minister say that he thinks they are not suitable members of the board and can ask them to resign? That means that a man need attend only four times in the year; provided his attendance does not drop down to three times in the year he is all right. That is a measurement of a man's keenness and zest which is of a very unsatisfactory order.
I think we might perhaps learn here from our past experience. The Government have already decided that, in the case of the Coal Board, it shall be full-time service. I therefore suggest that it is Government policy to have full-time directors for nationalised undertakings. The Lord President himself, in referring to the sort of people who ought to serve on these boards, said, in the Civil Aviation Debate on 24th January:
We intend to make the appointments on the grounds of competence and ability. We

do not mind where the man comes from as long as he has the necessary competence for the position and as long as he is a believer in the policy we are pursuing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 432.]
I suggest that, if he is really a believer in the policy that is being pursued, he will want to devote himself to the task with that thoroughness and completeness of mind which will make him want to be a full-time member and not a part-time member. Again, looking to the experience of the past, on which I think we should draw, we see that when people have been part-time members of a board a conflict of interest has been aroused in their minds. We know that if a man tries to serve two masters he tends to draw towards one rather than the other. In a presidential address to the Chamber of Shipping in February, 1943, which was published under the heading of, "The Dangers of Monopoly," a man who was a part-time director of B.O.A.C. said these words:
Just before the war Parliament in its wisdom decided on the present form of control for the development of civil air transport (B.O.A.C.). That was at a time when it was evident that considerable sums would have to be provided from the public purse to secure a minimum service. Are we still in that position, or can we say that aeroplanes will soon fly without subsidy? When that day comes, private enterprise should be encouraged to develop air transport in the same way as it developed our merchant marine. No one monopoly for sea transport could have secured for us the dominant place which we obtained by open competition in merchant shipping, and I believe that that is equally true of the air.
He went on:
Once private enterprise is prepared to venture its money in air transport, it should be welcomed, for it is only in an atmosphere of healthy competition that a vigorous merchant air service can be built up.…To create an artificial stimulus in the air, whether British or foreign, will pauperise shipping, whoever does it.
That part-time member of the board was a director of a shipping company. If a man has that conflict of interest, he cannot devote himself to the task to which he is publicly appointed, to see that our air lines, in a nationalised undertaking, are really a success. He cannot do that if, at the same time he is a member of the board, he is advocating private enterprise instead. That is the sort of conflict, I think, that is inevitable. It may be suggested that, if that was said in 1943, as it was, it is old history. A present director of B.O.A.C. is talking in somewhat similar terms in a report he recently


published—in April, 1946. He suggests that:
It remains to be seen how speculative our State-owned air lines will find it possible to be.…There is no impelling social reason for such an experiment, and if they try, and fail, it is, unfortunately, the taxpayers' money which is lost. Indeed, this problem of speculating with public money in unpredictable ventures it a subtle one, to which almost no constructive thought has yet been given.
He makes a comparison between air lines and shipping lines, and says:
What is not so predictable is the outcome, when the steamship operator finds it necessary to reduce his standards of comfort and amenity in order to face actual price competition from the aeroplane in the highest ranges of his tariff. It is then that the long and leisurely journey by sea may begin to lose some of its traditional attractions.
That is from a man who was a director of a shipping company as well as a director of the Air Corporation. There is this conflict of interest, which prevents these people, and is bound to prevent them, giving that enthusiastic service, and that real and inspiring leadership, which are absolutely essential if these undertakings are to develop in the way that will promote the civil aviation progress of this country.

7.15 p.m.

Sir W. Wakefield: Tonight we, have been listening to a very interesting difference of opinion in the ranks of the Socialists. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) expressed the logical conclusion of what is in the Bill. This Bill gives complete power to the Ministry and to the Treasury to operate and to decide the policy of civil aviation, and to be responsible for it. Clearly, if that is the case, what the hon. Member for Nuneaton and his friends want is complete bureaucracy in absolute control of the Minister, to run this new nationalised industry.

Mr. Bowles: Does the hon. Gentleman really think B.O.A.C. is now bureaucratic, or not? Let us understand his terms.

Sir W. Wakefield: I am not going to be diverted by the red herrings the hon. Member for Nuneaton wants to draw across the trail. I am saying that he and his friends are following what is logical in the Bill, namely, Ministerial responsibility and bureaucratic operation, with full-time boards of directors and complete bureaucracy. But the Government are

rather fearful of this policy of nationalisation which the hon. Member for Nuneaton and his friends want. The Government are timorous about what is happening, and here is a cleavage in the opinion of hon. Members opposite as to how nationalisation should work. Again and again, the learned Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary have given us intentions and assurances of what is going to happen, of how responsibility is to be given to the boards of directors to formulate policy, how freedom of decision is to be given them, flexibility and elasticity; and, clearly, if the intentions expressed, again and again, by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the learned Attorney-General are to be implemented, then the best way to implement them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) said, is by means of part-time directors who can bring breadth of vision and experience to the formulation of policy.
There is another point of great substance. If the intentions behind this Bill are to be carried out, then the directors should feel themselves free to give independent views. How can a man, whose whole livelihood depends upon the views he gives, be as independent as he ought to be on these boards? After all, if a man is in receipt of only part-time remuneration, and if he differs from the Minister, he ought to be able to say so, and if he feels strongly enough about a matter of disagreement, he ought to be able to resign his position. If there are part-time directors that sort of thing will happen, when people feel strongly about a matter. It cannot happen if a man is a whole time servant of the Government. A man who is a whole-time servant of the Government cannot be expected to chuck his whole job. Therefore, I think the Government are very wise in what they are doing, and in not adopting the "whole hogging" atmosphere of nationalisation, which the hon. Member for Nuneaton and his friends recommend. It has been most interesting tonight, to see this difference of opinion as to how schemes of nationalisation should be carried out, and I only hope, for the sake of the future of civil aviation, that the Government will continue to be very fearful inked, of introducing schemes of nationalisation which will prevent flexibility and independence of judgment, and make this great industry, and other great


industries, more bureaucratic than they need be.

Major Niall Macpherson: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) moved this Amendment with great cogency, but it seems t me that one of his contentions was shown to be entirely wrong by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He was under the impression that the main planning authority would be the Minister. We have been given assurances that this is not to be so, and I understand that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is also strongly of the opinion that the main planning authority should be the corporation.

Mr. Bowles: The hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood me—it is exactly the opposite. I want the Minister of Civil Aviation to direct policy and to leave execution to the corporations

Major Macpherson: In that case, I submit that there is no real reason for the board at all. All that is required is a number of departmental heads, each serving in a different capacity. The sort of man we want is a man of mature judgment. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), with his accustomed verve and enthusiasm, seems to think that all that is required is zeal, but he should remember Talleyrand's injunction, "Pas trap de zèle "—not too much zeal. We want men with a capacity to form judgments, men who are well in touch with all kinds of users of

aircraft, and men who have knowledge of the countries to which the aircraft are flying. I submit that it would be impossible to gather together a board with such knowledge if these people are to be whole-time members. I was in full agreement with the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). It is imperative that we should have the utmost independence of judgment. I quite agree that there is something to be said for the point of view that a big part-time director will not have much to lose if he differs from the Minister, because he may be willing to resign, or alternatively he may continue in his guinea pig capacity. Surely the job of the Minister is to select people who are independent persons with mature judgment, and are able to give the necessary service. It will be their duty to reach conclusions based on experience, and to hold their ground against the Minister, and to resign, if necessary, and resign with a resounding clash making known their reasons.

Mr. Boothby: Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 230.

Division No. 245.
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Baird, Capt. J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Solley, L. J.


Bowies, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tiffany, S.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Foot, M. M.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Proctor, W. T.



Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Skinnard, F. W.
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper and


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Major Vernon.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Bruce, Mai. D. W. T.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Belcher, J. W.
Buchanan, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V
Bellenger, F J.
Burke, W. A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Benson, G.
Byers Lt.-Col. F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bing, G. H. C.
Callaghan, James


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Binns, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Attewell, H. C.
Blackburn, A. R.
Chamberlain, R. A.


Ayles, W. H.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Champion, A. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bottomley, A. G.
Clitherow, Dr R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exoh'ge)
Cobb, F. A.


Balfour, A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cocks, F. S.


Barstow, P. G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Coldrick, W.


Battley, J. R.
Brown, George (Belper)
Collindridge, F




Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Key, C. W.
Robens, A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
King, E. M.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Daggar, G.
Lang, G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lavers, S.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sargood, R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Leonard, W.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Diamond, J.
Leslie, J. R.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Dobbie, W.
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helena)


Donovan, T.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shurmer, P.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Durbin, E. F. M.
McAdam, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAllister, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Edelman, M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Stamford, W.


Ewart, R.
McKinlay, A. S.
Stephen, C.


Fairhurst, F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, F.


Farthing, W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Stubbs, A. E.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Forman, J. C.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Teeling, William


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mathers, G.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Gibbins, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Gilzean, A.
Monslow, W.
Thurtle, E.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Montague, F.
Timmons, J.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Titterington, M. F.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Morley, R.
Tolley, L.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Grenfell, D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Walker, G. H.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Guy, W. H.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Weitzman, D.


Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Harris, H. Wilson
Paget, R. T.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Harrison, J
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pearson, A.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearl, Capt. T. F.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hicks, G.
Perrins, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Holman, P.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williamson, T.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Willis, E.


Hoy, J.
Pritt, D. N.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.
Wilson, J. H.


Irving, W. J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Woodburn, A.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Randall, H. E.
Woods, G. S.


Janner, B.
Ranger, J.
Yates, V. F.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Rees-Williams, D. R.



Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Keenan, W.
Richards, R.
Mr. Hannan.


Kenyon, C.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.



Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Amendments made: In page 43, line 20, after "office," insert "as such."

In page 44, line 23, leave out "annual salary," and insert "remuneration."

In line 26, leave out the first "annual salary," and insert "remuneration."

In line 26, leave out the second "annual salary," and insert "remuneration."

In line 32, leave out "annual salary," and insert "remuneration."

In line 33, leave out "annual salary," and insert "remuneration."—[Mr. Ivor Thomas.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, which are to cease to have effect.

Amendment made: In page 45, line 17, leave out from the first "the," to end of line 18, and insert "proviso."—[Mr. Ivor Thomas.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions relating to certain orders.)

Amendment made: In page 46, line 24, leave out "paragraph," and insert "Part of this Schedule."

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Adjustments of the functions of statutory undertakers.)

Amendments made: In page 52, line 28, after "given," insert "or proposed to be given"

In page 53, line 3o, after "Act," insert "or the giving of any direction in pursuance of the said Part II."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Attorney-General.]

7.36 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The first point to which I wish to refer is the London airport. I think that most of us are agreed that the London airport has started off on the right lines. When the work is completed, we should have one of the best airports in the world. I am concerned about the communications between Heathrow and Central London. There has been a suggestion that the airport should be linked up by extension of an existing road. I do not think that is enough. The obvious means of communication between Heathrow and Central London is by rail.

Mr. Speaker: On Third Reading, the hon. and gallant Member may refer only to those things which are in the Bill, and not to things outside it.

Air-Commodore Harvey: We discussed this matter upstairs at some length, but I readily abide by your decision, Mr. Speaker, and I will pass on to my next point. I feel that with regard to the aerodrome situation generally, the Ministry of Civil Aviation is fairly short of aerodromes near to the Metropolis. I suggest that aerodromes should be given up by the Royal Air Force. With the great speed of aircraft today, it is not necessary to have squadrons located very near London, and aerodromes should be given up for the use of civil aviation.
I would refer to Clause 19—and I am sure that on this I am quite in Order—dealing with the question of the remuneration of staff. I feel that, at the moment, B.O.A.C. has probably one of the worst-paid staffs of any air line in the world. A senior captain gets as a maxi-

mum only £1,100 a year; a first-class navigating officer £500 to £600, and a first-class flight steward £267 maximum, which is less than a waiter earns in the House of Commons. Surely, men carrying out some thousand hours' flying a year should be better paid than men with a job on the ground, and able to go home every night. I suggest that there is room for great improvement by the Government in their remuneration of their flying staff. I am concerned that numbers of our pilots, engineers and managerial staff are going to foreign airlines. There is something wrong when we are losing the very best material which we have today. The Swedish airlines are looking for 40 pilots. The Belgians and Norwegians are also looking for pilots and engineers from this country; and I believe it is a question of pay. If the corporations pay their staffs well and give them good terms of service, we shall retain them in this country. I view with great alarm that we should be losing the cream of the Royal Air Force, now being demobilised, by these men joining up with our foreign allies.
I pass to the question of aircraft. I feel that, once and for all, we should be given a clear picture regarding the rate of production of the aircraft being made in this country. In the last 12 months, we have been given various delivery dates, and every time an hon. Member has asked a question, or there has been a Debate on this subject, we find the delivery dates are two or three months later. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the production rate and delivery dates of the Tudor II

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that is out of Order because this Bill does not deal with aircraft production.

Mr. Bowles: I only want to say a few words. When the Debate on the White Paper was taking place in this House——

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. The Bill refers to the sum of, I think, £21 million being allowed for the purchase of aircraft, and I submit with great respect that I am entitled to ask the delivery date of these aircraft and when the corporations will operate them.

Mr. Speaker: That may be.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): If I may help, the Bill does not provide£21 million for aircraft. It does make certain provision for capital stock and some of that will be used for aircraft.

Air-Commodore Harvey: That was the point I was making. Unless we know clearly the production date of these aircraft the corporations will not function efficiently. If I may proceed with this point we will get useful information from the Minister's reply. On 6th October, 1044, the Miles Aircraft Company of Reading were invited by the Ministry of Aircraft Production to make two prototypes. They were given verbal instructions to build these aircraft. Following this provisional order, a struggle took place between the Ministry of Aircraft Production, B.A.O.C., the Air Registration Board, the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Royal Aircraft Establishment, none of whom had any coordinating effort, and all of whom issued conflicting instructions. For instance, it was laid down that the radio in the Marathon type should be the weight of three or four passengers. I leave it to the imagination of hon. Members to say what its effect would have been. The Ministry of Supply insisted on pressurisation of these aircraft, although the engines allowed them to fly at a height of only 6,000 or 7, 000 feet.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help pointing out that this is the Third Reading Debate, and to go into aircraft production and the type of aircraft to be used, is quite outside Third Reading. This Bill, after all, merely sets up civil aviation. Details of the kind gone into by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) I must really rule out of Order.

Air-Commodore Harvey: With great respect, there is great concern about the production of aircraft.

Mr. Speaker: But it does not come in under the Bill. The Bill only sets up a system of civil aviation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Further to that point of Order. Clause 10 comes under the Third Reading, and it provides for an amount of stock to be issued as loans. On the Committee stage we were told that this figure would be split up and so much devoted to the purchase of aircraft, primarily British aircraft.

Is not my hon. and gallant Friend in Order in raising that matter in order to see what progress is made, because I think that this £21 million comes indirectly at any rate under Clause 10?

Mr. Speaker: No, hut I should say he would be in Order in arguing that it is not large enough to purchase aircraft. To discuss the details of aeroplanes and their equipment seems to me to be out of Order on the Third Reading.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: In the Bill very large sums of money are being granted by way of subsidies for the operation of these transport services. Is it not in Order to discuss why all these big grants should be made? The provision of inefficient aircraft may well mean the granting by the Treasury of large subsidies, which would not have to be granted under this Bill were it not for inefficient operations or inefficient supply of aircraft or components of aircraft.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that Ruling. It seems to me that the amount which is allocated for the provision of aircraft may be criticised as being too big or too small, but to go into the details and say this aircraft is not the correct one and is not safe for flying and that another one should be pressurised or should not be pressurised is quite outside the Third Reading of the Bill.

Air-Commodore Harvey: One final point of Order. I am not concerned with the amount of money spent except that it is a great sum of the taxpayers' money. I was trying to show that unless these aircraft were delivered on time the corporations will be unable to operate efficiently. I do submit, in view of that, that I was justified in pointing out those incidents where they have failed.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman raising a point of Order?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Even so, I do not see how that comes under the Bill. The hon. Member can criticise the amount of money but not the rate of delivery or details of that kind. That seems to me quite outside the scope of the Third Reading.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I only want to speak for one minute. When the Lord


President of the Council made his winding up speech during the Debate on the White Paper on Civil Aviation, which preceded the introduction of this Bill, he said one thing that rather worried some of us on this side of the House. He said a new Bill was going to be introduced—maybe he meant this one now passing the House of Commons—to try to build up in this country the most efficient nationalised air service in the world. I asked him previously in the Debate whether he would not at the same time press on with the policy which we on this side of the House stand for, namely, full blooded internationalisation of civil aviation. He used the argument which rather depressed many of us on this side of the House. He said that it was impossible to pursue——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. May I ask your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to whether a discussion on the internationalisation of airlines is any more relevant to the Third Reading than the delivery date of British aircraft?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is not a question of "any more relevant." It is the relevancy of the matter and I rule that it is not relevant to the present Third Reading discussion.

Mr. Bowles: I was only going to say that this will be a very bad Bill without it. I do not want to say much more at this stage, but I just want to add this. As I see similar Bills passing the Parliaments of other countries, it means that other countries are setting up their own nationalised air service, and it is beginning to impose on the world a serious rivalry and possibly something much more dangerous in international affairs than perhaps even arises from the production——

Sir Patrick Hannon: May I rise to a point of Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

Sir P. Hannon: I would like to ask whether the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is dealing with a point of Order or making a speech in relation to the subject before the House, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) had not finished his speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood the hon. Member had finished his speech and that Mr. Speaker had called upon the hon. Member for Nuneaton.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Further to that point of Order. The hon. Member for Nuneaton was raising a point of Order which seemed to be a long point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) had resumed his seat.

Sir P. Hannon: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Speaker called upon the hon. Member for Nuneaton and that being so, the hon. Member for Nuneaton has the Floor.

Sir W. Wakefield: Further to that point of Order. Prior to that the hon. Member for Nuneaton did raise a point of Order, and it seemed to us on this side of the House that he was providing further arguments to the point of Order which he had raised.

Mr. Bowles: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for me to decide. I can only follow what Mr. Speaker has decided, and Mr. Speaker called upon the hon. Member for Nuneaton. He should now proceed with his speech.

Mr. Bowles: I did not raise a point of Order at all. I leave that kind of obstruction to hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) allowed to say that he leaves that kind of obstruction to hon. Members on this side of the House? I understood that the use of the word "obstruction" was un-Parliamentary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must admit that I did not hear the word "obstruction," but if the hon. Member for Nuneaton used it he must withdraw it.

Mr. Bowles: I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the latest edition of "Erskine May" lays down that obstruction is not an un-Parliamentary expression.

Mr. Stanley: If you are right in Ruling that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw, Sir, is not your Ruling being challenged?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I said that I did not hear the words which were allowed to be used, but if they were used they should be withdrawn. I am now informed that I am rather out of date and that according to the latest edition of "Erskine May," which I do not wish to challenge, the word "obstruction" is not out of Order. I reserve my right to glance at "Erskine May," and if I am wrong I shall admit it to the House.

Mr. Bowles: I was trying to say that I have not yet raised a point of Order in this Debate, and I said that I left that kind of business to Members on the other side of the House. I was saying that 1 regarded the Bill as a danger unless other things follow quickly in its place. If we are to have any kind of safety, so far as the internationalisation of airways is concerned, we must get away from nationalisation, except as a temporary measure. In this matter the Ministry of Civil Aviation should be regarded purely as a midwife for the purpose of bringing——

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir, whether the term, "midwife" is a Parliamentary expression?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are few words that are not Parliamentary expressions, and that is not one of them.

Mr. Messer: There is the Midwives Act, so it must be.

Mr. Bowles: I appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consult his noble Friend as soon as he can after this Debate. I hope Members on this side of the House will regard this Bill purely and simply as forming an intermediate stage towards the full blooded internationalisation and organisation of civil flying throughout the world. I shall not vote against the Third Reading, because I think the Bill is all right so far as it goes, but, as I have said, it must be regarded simply as a temporary Measure towards the end which I and my hon. Friends on this side have advocated in this Parliament, and in the last.
The only hope of maintaining world peace is to internationalise not only this form of travel, but all forms of communication. Otherwise, I feel that the world stands in danger of another source of rivalry. I have heard Members say, during the Debates on this Bill, "Let us fly British, because we must be supreme in the air." The Americans, the Dutch and the French are saying it. All cannot be the top dog. It is mathematically impossible. Only one or two can remain supreme. The struggle and international competition which we clearly see around us worries some of my hon. Friends and myself, and I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that the Ministry will press on with the real policy of the Labour party, namely, internationalisation. If he does, we will accept the Third Reading of this Bill on the understanding that it is just a step in the direction of full blooded internationalisation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before I call on the next speaker, perhaps I might he allowed to read to the House what the latest edition of "Erskine May" says about obstruction. It states:
The charge that a Member is obstructing the Business of the House, or that his speech is an abuse of the Rules of the House, is not out of Order.
Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will ask leave to withdraw the statement I made to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), that what he said just now was out of Order.

7.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Now that the internal matters of little importance to the Bill have been disposed of, I would like to go back to the Third Reading of this Measure. When our good friends the Americans were happily with us they introduced many quaint customs and unusual phrases and words, and among the many there was one which was not very popular with us, and which we did not fully appreciate. But that word is most peculiarly appropriate to this Bill. The word is "phoney," and this Bill is, in truth, a "phoney" Bill. It pretends to give freedom to a great, new, venturous service, to seek by imagination, skill and enterprise to get control of that service, and to establish its place in the mastery of the air. But the actual phraseology of the Bill strangles


at birth what might have been a very healthy and vigorous child. I need go no further than to say that as a result of this Bill civil aviation may be entombed in a musty Whitehall cupboard, there to leave the bones of a body which might have been one of the wonders and blessings of this country.
One seeks the reason for all this. It comes from the well-conceived but unfortunate slogan by which the Socialist Party climbed the ladder to office—"Nationalisation." Nationalisation was undoubtedly a good slogan, easy to pronounce and to memorise, and so useful for the politically immature. The only thing difficult about it was to make it work, as the Minister of Fuel and Power has recently confessed. However, I will depart from that brief discussion of nationalisation, which is hardly worth while, because we all know that it will lead us to disaster
Let us examine this ill-bred monstrosity of a Bill. The first thing that strikes one is the word "development," in the opening words of the Bill. You can develop a chill, a cold, a bad habit, or even a fatal disease, which is a very bad omen for this unfortunate and misguided Government. I would have thought that "improvement" might have been a more suitable word. Goodness knows, we need some improvement in our present set-up. It seems incredible when one looks around and sees England lingering, atom struck in regard to air development, while our friends in the United States, in alliance with our nearby friends in Southern Ireland, are forging ahead. One has only to consider the terms of the Bill to obtain ample confirmation of my statement. Clause 1 sets up the three corporations, the B.O.A.C., which is already in existence, the British European Airways Corporation, and the British South American Airways Corporation. Inadvertently, no doubt, but very unfortunately, there is not one word about Scotland——

Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. Is there anything in the Bill, Sir, about England and Wales specifically? In any case, I protest against an Irishman speaking on behalf of Scotland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Sir T. Moore: I was saying, when the hon. Member made that unnecessary and futile interruption——

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): On a point of Order. Is it in Order on the Third Reading to mention something which is not in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly it is not in Order. One must confine one's remarks and arguments to what is contained in the Bill.

Sir T. Moore: I will leave the question of that unfortunate omission of Scotland, and proceed to the next point. Having established these three alleged independent corporations, their independence is immediately destroyed by Clause 2, which places them under the direct dictation of the Minister. There is no freedom there. In Clause 3, the Minister seeks to build up this make-believe of local knowledge and experience by setting up these advisory committees with executive functions. What on earth is meant by advisory committees with executive functions, I have not the least notion. There is even one for Scotland, and it is mentioned. I call that an insult to the country which has helped to build up civil aviation. In subsequent Clauses, the Minister shows the truly "phoney" character of these concessions to local sentiment and knowledge by consistently stressing, throughout the Bill, that he is the supreme Führer. He cunningly endeavours to throw dust into our eyes by declaring, in Clauses 4 and 5, that he will consult these stooge directors of his corporations. They are nothing more than stooges, since they are appointed by the Minister and, presumably, can be removed by him.
We come, then, to the financial provisions of the Bill in Clauses 7 to 15. In those Clauses the Minister has the audacity, or possibly the temerity, to suggest that the necessary finance for the corporations will be provided voluntarily by the investing public. Can one see the investing public being hoodwinked by these so-called independent enterprises? The odd part of it is that, in practically the same breath, the Minister saves himself by making it clear that if the public will not be voluntary fools, they will be compelled to provide the money required through taxation, because the Treasury underwrites the whole "phoney" settlement. There are many other points to expose in this miserable Bill, but the time I have set myself is up. I know that my


colleagues on this side of the House will admit, and probably will be proud, that we have endeavoured to do our best with this wretched thing in Committee, but, of course, we have been unable to alter the fundamental folly of placing this great service, so vital to the future grandeur of our country, in the straitjacket of a Socialist State monopoly. Nevertheless, while I have great misgivings, I still wish it Godspeed.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: This Bill is concerned with providing the means whereby civil aviation can be developed through the making and the use of aircraft. That is very important. If it were a Bill simply to fly aeroplanes, there would be no hope of developing the genius of this country and building up anything like a real air transport service. To "make and use" aircraft is the basis of the Bill. But when we come to Clause 5o, we read:
This Act shall, in its application to Scotland"—
and maybe I shall be allowed to speak of Scotland, because I am only half an Irishman—
have effect subject to the following modifications—(a) for any reference to an easement there shall be substituted a reference to a servitude.
That is a good substitution, because if one reads the Bill, one finds that, as a consequence of the Bill, despite the slight concessions which the Minister has made, Scotland will be under a servitude to these corporations. To "make and use" is the basis of the Bill; it is the only basis on which civil aviation can be built up. Unless there is the right to "make and use," Scotland's genius, which has played such a tremendous part in developing sea transport, will not be able to play its part in developing air transport. Scotland is under a penalty; Scotland is in penal servitude, as far as this Bill is concerned. I want to impress upon hon. Members that Scotland has a record, a tradition, that is known all over the world for the genius of its engineers and for the part they have played in developing the sea transport of this country. I ask that this servitude be removed entirely from Scotland, and that the Minister find a way of getting even out of this Bill a situation in which Scotland can play its full part in "making

and using" and thereby develop its own aviation.

8.7 p.m.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). I thought he had an absolutely first-class idea; it was that the Government should abandon this Bill as soon as ever it could. I agree with the hon. Member that the Bill has many bad features, but I agree with him for different reasons from those which he gave. Hon. Members opposite have made it quite clear, as did the Government's White Paper, that they are in favour of the internationalisation of civil aviation. Surely, to set up the British Government in Government competition in the air is something that makes internationalisation more remote. If this Bill is bad for hon. Members opposite, it is also bad from our point of view, because for different reasons, we do not believe in a State monopoly, and I think this Bill creates a State monopoly in its worst form. I am against monopolies because under the monopoly system it is always the consumer who suffers, and the consumer may well suffer in the field of aviation as well.
I believe the Government have picked the wrong thing to nationalise here. This is a young and vigorous industry, and in spite of difficulties in the past, it has done well, and it has had a continuous record of expansion. It has been left in the hands of a few pioneers who have carried the burden for a long time, in the days when the public have not been airminded. Now, at the conclusion of a great war in which the air has played a vigorous part, people are much more airminded, and air travel will be needed more than ever. Now, when the prospects are good, the pioneers are to be struck down right away, without adequate compensation, in favour of Government enterprise. It is very hard that those who for many years have been drinking watered milk should now be robbed of the cream which should rightly be theirs.
I hope that if this Measure goes through our air lines will do well, hut I think it is a mistake to go in for a scheme of State monopoly and nationalization in an industry in which we have to meet very vigorous and enterprising foreign competition. It is not like a home industry: it is not


like coal or public utilities, where there is no competition from abroad. We want courage, initiative, vigour and flexibility of approach to meet foreign competition. In my opinion, those are all attributes of private enterprise. Even if we were to accept the Government's contention that there should be a system of monopoly, the present scheme is not the best one. If we are to have a monopoly the only sensible way is to appoint one overall corporation to control the whole thing with its subsidiary divisions organising different areas. Instead of this we are to have three boards, all of whom will have to be paid, three headquarters and three sets of staff. The additional cost to the Government was reckoned by the late Director General of British Overseas Airways at £150,000 a year, which will all be wasted under the present plan.
There is another reason why I criticise this Bill. Take our services to the United States; other nations and private companies will be operating companies which start from Europe and eventually finish over in the United States. If a passenger wishes to "buy British" he will have to start his journey in Europe and when he reaches England on a British aircraft will have to transfer to another line under different control and deal with another set of officials, We are making a mistake there; we are the only people who cannot offer a continuous service under one control and on one line all the way from Europe to the U.S.A., and I think we need that. There are many other grounds on which I must criticise this Bill if I had time, but I do criticise the lack of freedom of the Board. I agree with all the other hon. Members who have said that we are going to have people who must inevitably be puppets of the Minister who sits on top and calls on them to dance to his own tune.
I have mentioned the position of the consumer and I think the provisions of the Bill give entirely inadequate consumer protection; in fact I am not so sure that the travelling public will be cared for as well as they might be. We can take our minds back to earlier this year when on initiative which came very largely from the Ministry the Pan-American undertaking were prevented from cutting the fares on the Atlantic trip to what they believed was a remunerative rate. Our

Ministry said that the fares must be high, and again the consuming public suffered. Only today we read an announcement from an official Government source, that at the airports taken over under this Bill the landing fees are to be increased very steeply. The charges will certainly go against all companies but they will hit the smaller man who is going to fly, and if we are to maintain powerful Air Forces in this country we have to encourage the young men and women to fly. Government control or monopoly over the airfields is tending to make the cost prohibitive and on these counts I think we should resist the Bill.
I do not like the wide powers which are given to the corporations under Clause 2 to run their ancillary services, and I would have raised the point earlier had I had the opportunity. All these companies can go right into the catering business if they desire, and may even build hotels. The Parliamentary Secretary himself said that he hoped that many such hotels would be built and one of his supporters, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), said that here was a grand opportunity for developing a great tourist industry in the Western Isles and that we should build hotels there to develop not a flying industry, but the tourist industry. That is not the type of accommodation we are visualising or want to obtain, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will say that the ancillary services in the hotel line should be confined to providing reasonable food and rest on airfields when other accommodation is not available. At the moment the Minister could very well say that, as there is a shortage of hotel space in London, one of the corporations should build another Dorchester Hotel in the West End. I think that powers which may be used in that way are too wide and should have been limited. I hope that in considering the ancillary services the Minister will remember in his guidance of these corporations that there is available only a limited amount of money and not an endless public purse which will dole out millions of pounds every year. I hope he will see to it that the money is used to develop the flying services of this country and not ancillary services which could very well be established in other ways.
I think that it is now obvious why I consider this is a thoroughly bad Bill and


another nail in the coffin of British free enterprise. The last Government were called, sometimes by their friends and often by their opponents, "the Government of caretakers." They seem to have been replaced by a Government of undertakers who are busy burying all that is vigorous and free in British private enterprise. I should like to see this Bill defeated, but, as has happened during this Session, I suppose the usual procedure will obtain; the course of wisdom will not prevail and once again the Government majority will steamroller it through in the face of our opposition.
However, once the Bill is passed, I think we can say that the new corporations will be representing the main trunk lines of British civil aviation. They will have our good will and our good wishes and we shall always cooperate in trying to make these lines efficient. We wish them well, and above all we wish very good luck to the fine body of men who are working them. Many of them are my friends and it has been my privilege to fly with them. Only recently when I was in Bermuda with a Parliamentary delegation we had the pleasure of flying from Bermuda to Baltimore in a British flying boat. One thing which impressed me very much was that it was a very old craft and that it was very slow—the American service was twice as fast—but the men who are operating the British service with inadequate equipment were doing their best to make up for it, and their courtesy and their efficiency on board that flying boat were something that was to be unequalled throughout the rest of the world. When our visit to the other side came to an end, I flew back again by British Overseas Airways in company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in one of the proving flights of the new Constellations which are going into service there. Here we had an aircraft which was the same as that the Americans were using, and again the courtesy and efficiency of the service and, indeed, the very pleasant tea we had on board which was also available to other passengers, were something the nature of which only this country could provide. I believe we can beat the world and if the Government see that we get first-class British aircraft equal to, and better than, those produced in America, we can give our men the best flying conditions they

can possibly have. Then our country will be on top. We will strive to see that they get the right aircraft and the right conditions.

8.19 p.m.

Major Niall Macpherson: Despite the invariable good temper and courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary throughout the various stages of this Bill, my colleagues and I remain invincibly opposed to it. In the time at my disposal I should just like to mention the five reasons on which we oppose the Bill most of all. First, the Bill creates three monopolies; they are not monopolies in the sense of world cartels but monopolies which discriminate quite definitely against our own nationals. They are monopolies in the sense that there is an alien preference. We have heard of Imperial preference and of British preference, but this monopoly introduces an alien preference, which is a new principle altogether—restricting British but permitting foreign competition. We think that the more companies a country has competing for trade, the larger will be the share that that country will get of that trade. The Government may talk of adjusting air services to capacity, but nevertheless, whether it is doing that in concert with other nations or not, I do not think that Britain will be the country to get the larger share of the trade so long as we maintain this state of monopoly. Civil aviation is being put, in its childhood, into a strait jacket, as if it had already committed crimes and already gone mad, and before we know whether it can operate, as other countries are doing so satisfactorily, on a basis of private enterprise or not.
The second objection which I have to the Bill is that the monopolies are run from Whitehall. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee that under Clause 3 an Advisory Committee shall be set up for Scotland, that there will be a separate division for Scotland, and that Scotland should be satisfied with that. I am not an ultra-nationalist. There are big arguments for the internationalisation of air services; but if we are to have monopolies, Scotland should have its own monopoly. The Parliamentary Secretary countered this argument during the Committee stage by saying:


The chief desideratum of an airline operator is to have a large and homogeneous fleet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee "B," 16th May, 1946; col. 32.]
Incidentally I doubt whether it is possible for our air lines to have a homogeneous fleet at all. The services required are so different.
Nevertheless, suppose it to be true. The argument is used to prove that Scotland cannot afford to have her own corporation. If that is true of Scotland, it is doubly true of Eire, which is less than half the size of Scotland and is all in one piece, whereas Scotland is spread over many islands. There is a limit to the number of planes that can effectively and efficiently be controlled. Hon. Members who have served in the R.A.F. can speak on these matters with a good deal more authority than I. They will agree, I think, that during the war control of 25 or 3o aircraft was considered to be as much as could be satisfactorily done. Can it be maintained that Scotland cannot operate from 25 to 3o aircraft satisfactorily, and that she has not the need for that number of aircraft? I do not believe it can. Therefore, I say there is the strongest case for a separate Scottish corporation. As the Bill is operated and developed I hope that, sooner or later, the Government will see reason and establish one.
Even granting that the interests of size and efficiency coincide, the Government will find that they have been most unwise to ride roughshod over nationalist susceptibilities. Scotland does not like monopolies, but if we are to have monopoly at all—and three are being established—there should be one for Scotland. I venture to predict that the day will come when the whole country, outside London, will resent and will revolt against nationalisation from Whitehall. It is not only Scotland that will do it; Lancashire, Yorkshire and Northern England will do the same. Undoubtedly Scotland has suffered from the departure of many of her best brains to the South and resulting financial control from the City of London but that is no reason why Scotland should be subjected to this new additional control by officials from Whitehall.
The third main objection we have is the power of the Minister to give any directions which he pleases. I am sure we all agree on this side of the House that

if we must have this set-up, the corporations should be allowed to work out their own policy and carry it out with the minimum of interference, consistent only with safeguarding the public purse.
The fourth objection that I have is connected with the question of charter services. Charter services are being crippled from birth. There is no question that the field left to them is so small that it can hardly be expected that those services will develop. Cheap travel can come only through the popularisation of air services and of individual flying. Under the Bill, this development will be exceedingly difficult. Cheap travel may come one day in this country, but so long as there are monopolies, flying will remain a privilege for the business man travelling on business, for the civil servant, and for the rich.
My last objection to the Bill arises from the penal Clauses. Before the war it was customary to raise loud and legitimate objection to the fact that monopolies dictated from above were in a position to dictate to those that infringed their laws and to withdraw supplies where they chose. What does the Bill do? It does not merely withdraw supplies. It inflicts upon those who infringe the monopoly a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment and of £5,000 per person per journey. Against what instinct or moral sense, against which of the rights of man, is one offending if one performs a public service by using the great new development of the air transport by carrying passengers for hire and reward? I believe that the barbaric severity of those penalties is a measure of the oppressive nature and of the unnaturalness of the Bill. I believe that the unpopularity that it is destined to arouse for itself will ultimately upset the Government altogether. The Government must clearly realise that they have aroused in Scotland by the Bill an animosity which it will be impossible for them to quell.
Notwithstanding all that, hon. Members everywhere cannot but wish the Bill well. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) has spoken of present operating conditions. We fear that the existing courtesies and facilities may not be maintained, under the operation of the Bill. We genuinely hope that they will. We wish the Bill well but we cannot support it, because we believe


that it will not bring the best results, which could have been obtained only under private enterprise.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: I hope this House will pass the Third Reading of this Bill, and allow the Measure to go forward. The Bill will be the first industrial nationalisation Measure that is capable of being brought into effect. The framework is already in being to a large extent. That means that, when the Bill is passed into law, the Labour Government's first nationalisation Measure of an industrial nature, namely this Bill, will be capable of showing the results of nationalisation at an early date. That means, as I see it, that the eyes of the country, and in fact the eyes of the world—these services are of a world-wide nature—will be watching the actual development of our civil aviation services, and they will reflect great credit or otherwise on the policy that the Government is pursuing. It is, therefore, of tremendous importance to the Government, and I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give the matter the most careful attention from the organisation point of view. To some extent the Clauses of the Bill have touched on matters of an organisation nature, and it is important that those Clauses should be implemented in such a way that the results are unquestionable in their success. It would easily be possible for wrong decisions to be taken which would have repercussions of a profound nature and would reflect on the Government's policy for extending nationalisation in other spheres.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that nationalisation has passed beyond the realms of experiment, and that it is now the natural method of development of large scale industry in any democratic country, for public services and natural resources to be operated in this way. The people of that country will, rightly and properly, expect to have some control of or some say in the way that public services will be run. In other words, if there is democratic influence in the method of control, the whole public will have a sense of participation in the way the services are run. In a similar way, the employees want the same feeling of being people who count—being men and women and not just cyphers, and being people whose opinions count and which will be taken into some consideration by those respon-

sible for the formulation of policy and the direction of the undertaking.
In saying that this has passed the experimental field, I suggest that we watch to see how other countries have run their civil aviation or other types of nationalised undertakings. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that we should watch how other large-scale industries are run and pick out the best method used in them, irrespective of whether they are run as capitalist enterprises or public enterprises. We need to pick out the best methods of organisation, wherever they show themselves capable of producing the results we want.
In this regard I would like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to one large-scale industrial concern which I have referred to on previous occasions, which I feel we cannot study too carefully. It is often thought in this country that America in particular can give us some lead in large-scale organisation. The particular undertaking to which I refer is the Tennessee Valley Authority, whose constitution says:
No member of the Board shall, during his continuance in office, be engaged in any other business, but each member shall devote himself to the work of the corporation.
Although the Amendment that we should have full-time members on the boards of these corporations was lost, the Parliamentary Secretary said that it was not outside the bounds of possibility that the suggestions in that Amendment would be taken into consideration by the Minister. As this is a successful example of large-scale organisation, I trust that this provision in the T.V.A. Act will be taken into consideration.
A second point on which we can take a lead from this same undertaking is that there are only three members appointed to the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority, instead of a minimum of five or a maximum of nine as is the case in each of these corporations. The remuneration of the three members of that board was only 10,000 dollars. I referred to this during the Committee stage and I think it is worth repeating.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member to go rather wide, but I do not see how he can apply what he is saying now to the Bill under discussion. This is the Third Reading, and he can only deal with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Cooper: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think the Bill refers to the fact that remuneration shall be paid to the members of the boards, and it was on that point I was touching very briefly. I will make my point in one sentence: it is that the remuneration we are intending to pay is in the neighbourhood of £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 a year to the members of these boards, and I suggest that such figures are not necessary in order to obtain the best brains, and people who really are able, keen and qualified to act in the capacity of directors of these boards.
Clause 26 deals with the acquisition of land by the Minister, and I believe there is a certain amount of disquiet amongst local authorities in that they feel they may be under some disadvantage, as they will be prevented under this Bill from continuing to use their aerodromes or to develop other aerodromes. If the matter comes up for consideration under compulsory acquisition, it may be that the arbitrators will assess the amount of compensation on the basis that the land which had been used by the local authority as an aerodrome had now become of no more use than for agricultural purposes. It may be that in the new circumstances compensation would be on a very much lower basis than would apply if this Bill had not prevented local authorities from developing their aerodromes. I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, can refer to that point in order to allay a certain amount of disquiet in the minds of some local authorities who have in the past developed aerodromes at the expense of the ratepayers and, when this Bill becomes law, may be penalised by what was previously an enthusiastic and public spirited action on their part.
I believe Clause 36 to be extremely important, because there was no such Clause as this in the previous Bill which brought British Overseas Airways Corporation into being, and a certain situation arose which I think, although I am not quite certain, will be covered by Clause 36. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will touch on this point and give me an assurance that such a matter would come under this Clause? In 1942 and 1943 it was felt by a large section of the staff of British Overseas Airways Corporation that it would be far preferable to

organise the airlines of the corporation in a similar way to that in which the airlines of America are organised, that is, on a divisional or line basis. The staff had studied this matter. They were competent people who had gained a great deal of experience from being engaged in the operation of our overseas air services over a period of years. It was because of their intimate knowledge of the industry, and their study of the development of civil aviation in other countries, that they suggested this method of divisional organisation should be adopted by the corporation. At that time the directors refused this suggestion; in fact, they opposed it in every way they could. So much so, that when it was pressed by the staff, they were told that it would not he acceded to and, furthermore, they were dispersed away from headquarters and the leaders in certain cases sent to overseas posts in order that their ideas, which they had brought up collectively, could be frustrated.
The success of our civil aviation will depend to a tremendous extent on the enthusiasm of those engaged in it. If they are prevented from bringing forward points like these we shall lose a great deal of the knowledge that members of the corporations will have gained in their daily tasks. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to assure me that Clause 36 will enable matters of that sort to be brought up when an occasion arises such as that in 1943. Since then the directors—who in some cases are still directors—have had to eat their own words as it were and have now acceded to the demand. It has been recently announced in the Press that divisional organisation is now the intention in the methods of operation adopted by these corporations.
This is an extremely important matter. It has been suggested that unions would cover such things as rates of pay and conditions of work, but that these matters of efficiency would not normally be dealt with by the unions. I hope Clause 36 will cover such matters as I have described. The whole success of these publicly owned undertakings will depend on the reactions of the staff to the new methods of organisation which are introduced. If we do not gain the wholehearted cooperation of the staff these corporations manifestly cannot succeed, because it depends on the people in the undertakings


putting forward their best efforts continuously. I am hoping that the method of control will be much less autocratic than in the past. Existing nationalised undertakings have not grown up under Labour Governments and that may account in some measure for the reason why they have partaken too much of the nature of large capitalist enterprises. We want them now to be an expression of our Socialist faith, and to give an opportunity for individual initiative to be shown by those employed in these undertakings.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member is developing a point of very great interest. I would like him to say whether from his experience in national service, he found there a desire to take account of these things put forward by members of the staff and if that was an outstanding feature.

Mr. Cooper: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised that point. I can speak with first hand knowledge of the Royal Air Force. I know that in units there, either squadrons or stations, where the commanding officer did take special precautions to bring his staff, both officers and other ranks, into the picture, and consult with them on questions of policy, he gained their wholehearted support and they expressed their initiative in the way I have described. That is a parallel in which people may be expected to show that sort of initiative in these nationalised undertakings, particularly under Clause 36 if it is used in the way I suggest. I hope I shall get a reassurance on that matter.
In Clause 19 reference has been made to the way in which there can be proper recognised bodies of employees associated with the executive staff who will discuss, together, at all levels the day to day problems that arise. That does not apply in B.O.A.C. now where there has been a great tendency to override people with keenness in a way most discouraging to those who really take an intelligent and lively interest in their work. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have special regard to one thing. A report was made by another Government Department to which I would have refrained from referring had action been taken on it. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the contents of it. I am informed that one of the statements made in it was that

there were some 250 senior executives at that time, plus a further 15 senior appointments about to be created. It has not stopped there. The figure is now close on 300 senior executives. That means that at the present time there are about 300 employees in B.O.A.C., with salaries of £1,000 a year and above.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: On a point of Order. May I say that this does not appear to me to be in the Bill, and it does not bear any relation to the facts?

Mr. Cooper: I am glad to have that intervention on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary, but this particular information has been verified with absolute certainty. The point I make, which is associated with the Bill, is that you have to go on increasing the staff of an inefficient organisation, because people in it are not devoting themselves to the task as thoroughly and conscientiously as they might do. That is covered by the Clauses to which I have referred—19 and 36. We should try to reach conclusions through the mistakes made in the past so that we do not continue them in the future. Here we have a corporation which is running less than 200 aircraft. Yet, we are having to pay to senior executives from the public purse salaries of nearly £300,000 a year. That sort of anomaly, as I see it, is something which can be eliminated, and rightly eliminated: by the right and proper suggestion of people in the corporation who know what they are doing and are skilled men, who do not require an overburden of people who are brought in, in many cases, over the heads of people much better qualified than they are. Nearly 300 people are receiving over£1,000 a year. That is the sort of anomaly which, I am suggesting, can be overcome by a right and proper use of the spirit as well as the letter of the law as it shortly will be.

8.48 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I have no doubts in my own mind that this is a thoroughly bad Bill. I have said so before. I say so again, with great regret. I cannot change my opinion. It is difficult to say all I had hoped to say and confine myself to what is actually in the Bill without incurring your displeasure, Sir, because so far as Scotland is concerned it is a particularly sore point. What is in the Bill is that Scotland, so far as civil avia-


tion is concerned, is to be completely controlled from London. There is to be a small branch office—I forget what it is called—in Scotland, which will take its orders from the Minister in London. It is one of the worst features of nationalised industry that nationalisation must mean centralisation—and the centre will never be Scotland, it will always be London. That is a grave danger to our country.
I know that many Scottish Members on the other side of the House are very unhappy in their own minds about this Bill. I am perfectly sure of that. I found myself in almost complete agreement with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) in his forceful remark a little earlier this evening. It may be an unusual combination, but I am happy that it should have occurred at least once. I wonder why hon. Members opposite gave in on these principles of Scottish aviation. They know, we do not. All I can say is that in our efforts to get the Government to answer the various challenges we put forth on behalf of Scotland we have never been answered in any degree satisfactory to us. The Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual charm, talked of Scottish sentiment and says it will not be forgotten, but he is like the wicked man the Psalmist spoke of,
whose words were smoother than butter—yet were they very swords.
As far as Scotland is concerned, he has given us nothing that matters.
This Bill definitely ties up Scotland to London for such a time as it is in operation. The great chance has gone for an aviation industry—industry apart from the flying—in Scotland. Scottish people are very anxious about this as they see week by week, month by month, unemployment figures rising to a terrible degree. They see that one more chance has gone for establishing a great industry which we must have to back up civil aviation if it is controlled. I do not wish to labour that point. I hope the Government will realise that feeling in Scotland is rising in this matter and rising fast. As I have said, unemployment is also rising very fast. There is no doubt but that we have to put up with this Bill, but we do that only under protest. There is not a thinking man or woman in Scotland today, be he a Conservative, Socialist or Liberal, or even a Communist, who does not

know, as far as civil aviation in Scotland is concerned, that it cannot be at its best until this method of taking away aviation from Scotland and forcing it on to London is done away with.

8.52 p.m.

Group-Captain Wilcock: There are only one or two points upon which I would like to touch. I consider it is a privilege to see this Bill through the House and, after the time we have spent during the Committee stage and else where, it is a relief. I believe that we have improved the Bill. Bon. Members opposite perhaps can take a little credit for that but not too much. This is not a perfect Bill, but during my short stay in this House I have not seen any Bill which is perfect. It is a fair Bill which will mean a tremendous lot to aviation in this country and the Empire. The main criticism by right hon. and hon. Members opposite has been that we are putting the corporations under State control. I have never seen the logic of that argument or their indignation. I do not think it has ever been sincere. It was a Conservative Government which made a State-owned corporation in B.O.A.C. They had very good reasons for doing that. Presumably, the Conservative Government considered that in operating throughout the world, including over the North Atlantic, it was necessary to have a State-owned corporation. I cannot see why in operating over the South Atlantic that also should not also be a State-owned corporation. I suggest that during the whole time they have been completely illogical in the arguments.
My reasons for wanting to see State-owned corporations are twofold. One reason is that I do not believe that we could operate civil airlines, scheduled air services throughout the world, successfully and efficiently except under State control. I do not think that would be possible. The State is and must be concerned in this. In connection with the services which we must run in the East and to Australia and, at present, those in Europe, private enterprise could not possibly succeed without State assistance. If State assistance must be found, I argue that these airlines might just as well be State controlled, as the Conservatives themselves thought in 1938.
Turning to the new organisation, I am disappointed in one thing, and I am


certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will not be surprised at my mentioning it—the absence of a controlling authority over the three corporations. I fear that we are going to have waste—waste in material, waste in personnel, and waste in money, by not having one controlling authority. I must confess that I shall watch this matter because I think that, with three advertising departments and three catering departments, three maintenance departments, and so on, waste is inevitable.
I come now to the question of part-time directors. The whole story on that has not yet been told. We have heard a lot of speeches, some of them brilliant, on this matter, and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has been talking about the Labour Party Aviation Committee, of which I have the honour to be vice-chairman. The point is—and this story should be told—that the members of the Labour Party Aviation Committee do not necessarily oppose part-time directors, but that we all asked, and we still ask that, whoever should run the corporations should be doing it as a full-time job. If necessary, the Minister could have a part-time board somewhere. That is not objected to, but, surely, it is a full-time job at the moment, and we ought to have, somewhere or other, a board of full-time members to start these corporations off on their run, and that is a point on which we, on our side, feel very strongly.
The next point which I would like to make concerns charter flying. I am one of very many hon. Members on this side of the House—and this may surprise hon. Members opposite—who do not believe in nationalising everything and everybody, but we do want to see airlines nationalised because we do not believe that it is possible to run them efficiently unless they are nationalised. In that opinion, we did have the support of the Conservative Party, or, rather, the Conservative Party themselves took that view some years ago, so that it should not be difficult for them to take that view now. When our airlines are nationalised, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that there is as little interference, and as much help, as possible, to everyone else concerned in aviation, whether charter companies, clubs or any other aviation activities. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will not be in

the position of policemen. I hope they will assist and help. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary, and also the Minister himself, is of that mind.
All I say now is that we should go ahead. The differences that have existed between hon. Members opposite and hon. Members on this side are purely differences of method. The aim of every hon. Member in this House, I am sure, and particularly all those concerned with aviation, is that we shall put British aviation on top. I remember the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, either here or in Committee the other day, speaking of a conversation with a waiter or official on the Blue Train, whom he asked whether he feared air competition. I think the hon. Member told us that the official merely smiled in a rather superior way as much as to indicate that they did not fear air competition at all. I would like to tell the hon. Member that we will take that smile off that official's face before we finish.
As usual, my last word is on aircraft. I am very glad to see the Minister of Supply here, because I fear that there is a bogy of obsolesence over the Minister of Supply—the bogy that everything he orders will be obsolescent soon, so that it is better not to order it. That is a wrong policy and a disastrous one. We are a very great Empire, and even if aircraft which are ordered today become obsolescent in two, three, five or Io years' time, they will still be usable and can still be sold. The Minister of Supply knows, possibly as well as I do, that one of the most popular aircraft in the world today is the American Dakota, which design is about 10 years old.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now departing form the Bill. Perhaps he will come back to it.

Group-Captain Wilcock: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With the passing of this Bill, we are, in a way, making some recognition of the work of the pilots and air crews of our civil flying Services during the war and in particular B.O.A.C. I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in the last 3o years, we have built up two of the biggest flying services and two of the finest aircraft industries in the world, In 1918 we allowed them to decline. It would be a


tragedy if we allowed that to happen this time. That is why I consider that we are in the hands of the Minister of Supply in this matter. If we allow any man to come out of an aircraft factory—and men are coming out of such factories in large numbers—because insufficient aircraft are being ordered, we shall be failing every one who has been in the flying Services and everybody concerned in aviation in the country. I suggest, very humbly, that we might, in the future, dedicate our air services and our State lines to the pilots and air crews of the Royal Air Force and R.N.A.S. who have fallen in the service of this great country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not dealing with the Bill. He is only entitled to do that, and must not go into extraneous subjects which are not in the Bill.

Group-Captain Wilcock: Again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I apologise. I will close by saying that the introduction of this Bill and the passing of it through this House will give encouragement to every pilot, air crew, and all ground staff within our national flying services. Good luck to them.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing me a few moments, and I assure the House that I shall be extremely brief. I tried to speak on the White Paper and in the Second Reading Debate, but owing to the enormous amount of legislation passing through the House, I was unable to catch your eye. Sir.
The hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) mentioned the question of waste, and I share that view with him. I, also, hope that all hon. Members in this House will watch and see whether or not waste will develop. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) also mentioned that, with an inefficient organisation, one always got an ever-increasing staff. During the years to come it will be of great interest to hon. Members to watch whether we get an ever-increasing staff.
I, fortunately, had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, and I think that one might reasonably say that this very bad Bill is now just slightly less bad—at least, that is my own view

about it. This is the last opportunity which this House will have of voicing a protest against the Bill. As we went through the weeks, studying this Bill, the outstanding feature which struck me was that page after page of it contained "If the Minister saw fit," "The Minister may," and so forth. The thought that kept developing in my mind, whether upstairs or when listening to the Debates in this Chamber, was how strange a race we are. We, as a British race, are always willing to die for liberty. Fortunately, that is so. Those of us here are here because people are willing so to die, and yet, after this greatest victory of ours, we are willing to sacrifice our liberty to a Socialist Minister. During the course of the proceedings upstairs, the Attorney-General answered a considerable number of points which were put to him by giving assurances that the Minister had no desire to exercise the various powers which were given to him in this Bill. He pointed out how gentle and kind the Parliamentary Secretary was, and I am certain that none of us doubted that point, but the strange thing is this perpetual life which is given to the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps it is thought by hon. Members opposite that when one deals with a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister concerned with a nationalising Bill such as this, the level is somewhat higher than if one deals with food or clothing or something of that sort.
I consider that this Bill is a tragedy. In Clause 15 of the Bill one finds that provision is made for subsidies for these different companies. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the shipping companies and railway companies were willing to continue without any form of subsidy at all. I suppose the British taxpayer will once more have to foot the bill. When we were discussing this Bill upstairs, I referred to one particular Clause and asked whether or not the subsidies referred to in that Clause, if exercised, would go against the spirit of Command Paper 6709. The Parliamentary Secretary gave me no reply to that, and I hope that this evening he will refer to it. In conclusion, I would say that, in spite of the Socialist Government, I personally have an enormous pride in belonging to this race of ours, and feel so completely convinced that somehow the spirit of adventure which has characterised our race will rise above all this proposed


legislation. I say, good luck to the companies and God speed to the men and women who fly for them. I am comforted by the thought that once more, at some future time, we shall be a free people, and that this Bill will only be an unhappy memory of a woefully bad administration.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: During the progress of this Bill through the Committee stage, and this afternoon, there has been a dialectic onslaught on the Bill by Conservative Members representing the Scottish constituencies. As a representative of a Scottish constitutency which is most concerned with the Bill, because my constituency includes Prestwick, I wish to say that this is a good Bill and that it is the only possible Bill. When I heard these denunciations of the Bill I wondered what exactly would have been the alternative If a Conservative Administration had been returned at the General Election. Would they have handed over Prestwick to private enterprise? Over £2 million of public money was spent on Prestwick during the war, and I submit that in the national interest we would have been entirely unjustified at any stage in saying that we would have handed over the aerodrome at Prestwick to be exploited by a private company.
I am glad to know that we have been assured in the Committee stage that in Scotland we will have control of the administration of the aerodromes, and that under this Bill we will. have more opportunity to raise in public questions about what is happening on the aerodromes in Scotland than we would have had if these aerodromes had been handed over to some private limited liability company. It is not only the aerodromes. The skill of the airmen has to be taken into account. I fail to see why the nation, having spent so much money on training airmen in Canada during the war, spending a very large sum per head, should now go out of the picture and hand the whole business over to private enterprise to exploit the skill and technical experience which these men gained at the national expense.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) raised a point in connection with an Amendment which I

moved in Committee. On that Amend-merit I received an assurance from the learned Attorney-General that under this new Bill the corporations would be able to take over hotel services as ancillaries to the aerodromes. I believe it will be a very good thing for Scotland, especially for the outlying parts of Scotland and the islands, which are now very remote from the mainland, to have the tourist traffic developed in connection with the civil aviation proposals. When the new aerodromes are opened up, and when the airline traffic is organised, I hope we will make the outer islands of Scotland as accessible to the people of this country as Blackpool is today. I quite understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Blackpool objects to the new corporations presenting opportunities for developing hotel services in the remote parts of the country. I believe it will be a good thing for people to get away from Blackpool to some of the generally undiscovered parts of this island of ours.
I have no doubt that this Bill is a far better thing for Scotland than some of the proposals that have been outlined by right hon. Gentlemen. The outburst of Scottish nationalism on the part of the Conservative Party is receiving very little support in Scotland. In the course of the Debate one hon. Member quoted Dr. Johnson's remark, that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. I disagree with that remark. After listening to these outbursts of patriotism in the nationalist Press I have come to the conclusion that patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel but the first. This outburst of pseudo patriotism on the part of the Scottish Conservatives is not general in Scotland, and we are not deceived by this line of attack upon the Bill. I share the views which have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Douglas Marshall) about the personnel of the new corporations. I do not want to see these three corporations manned by "guinea pig directors" from the city. I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) is in favour of part-time directors. It is in the tradition of the party to which he belongs.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: And that of the hon. Member's party.

Mr. Hughes: For example, I do not want to see duplication in the new corporations; I do not want all the plum jobs to be given to people in the City of London. Recently, one very interesting position has been given to a very well known political figure who is a Member of another place. I do not think a gentleman who is a director of innumerable other companies should be called upon to serve on the new corporations. I note that a recent appointment to an important position was given to a gentleman who is a director of a bank, a director of a small arms company, a director of a carriage and wagon company, a director of the Royal Insurance Company, on an investment trust, on a railway company, and serving on three or four different companies which are subsidiaries of the company known as Lewis's. I suggest that we should not adopt that attitude in appointing the personnel of our new boards. If the Conservative Party want to appoint a gentleman who is on innumerable boards and who has innumerable irons in the fire, that is no reason why the same procedure should be adopted by the Government in manning the new corporations which are to be set up under this Bill. Although we shall watch sympathetically how this Bill is applied to Scotland, I believe it is an infinitely better Bill than any that a Conservative Administration would have produced, and we hope it will have the result of greatly increasing the opportunities of the people of this country of travelling by air.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: This evening we have had some very serious contributions to this. Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill, and I would appeal to every hon. Member who takes part to speak with every sincere wish, as I feel sure they do, for the benefit of civil aviation. Almost for the first time, and possibly for the last time, I have some sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary. I regard him at the moment as like a person anxiously pacing the passage outside a maternity ward; he is expecting the birth of a child, and like many a father he thinks he can forecast what it will be. [An HON. MEMBER: "Triplets."] Yes, I accept that, and of a very weird and strange kind. The hon. and gallant Member for Derby (Group-Captain Wilcock) has expressed good wishes to this Bill,

but I must challenge him on his question as to where could free enterprise have found the money to deliver a fine, keen and magnificent aviation. I say from keen individualism and from public subscription, as we have always done in the past to build up the railways, the steamship companies and the Empire. I do not doubt that had it been left to the citizens in this postwar age to blaze the trail of civil aviation, they would have delivered something to be proud of.
This Bill is known to us, and I am sorry that it does not contain a set-up like that in America, with free enterprise, a "Civil Aeronautics Authority," and a Licensing Authority. Too much depends on the poor Minister. He is sacrosanct, and I fear he must always be worried. He is human like ourselves, but too much responsibility is being laid upon him. It is suggested that we must place the blame for this Bill upon the previous Government who, under the Swinton plan, produced something very akin to nationalisation. Indeed, I think we must blame that Coalition for the evils that are falling on civil aviation today. At least, I can claim with modesty that I was not a party to it. In fact, at the time I expressed my opinion in no uncertain manner. I well remember being shocked at the scheme put forward, and I bought a floral tribute, tying a label to it which read thus:
''To British civil aviation. Slain by political compromise. And from its fair and unpolluted flesh may violets spring.
So today, I am quite unashamed when I condemn the previous scheme and this one. But I would make a few constructive remarks, because I think this is an occasion when no one should play for laughter. North, South, East of London we want aerodromes. May this Bill provide them. We need charter firms admitted to all terminal aerodromes. If the Government, in fact, want charter to succeed, some of the conditions under which they operate now are highly disgraceful. There is a large hangar at Croydon full of pieces which, I understand, are for examination and salvage; but no one visits this hangar, except mice.
I must briefly touch on Scotland, though I will do so as shortly as possible. We have had speeches from the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and from other


Scottish Members, tout I would say that Scotland definitely dislikes not having its own Corporation. There are those who feel that keenly, and are hurt by it; and there are those people who regard control from Whitehall as something funnier than Dave Willis and Jack Anthony, and they are, indeed, extremely funny.
I am winding up a 25-year interest in civil aviation. We have heard a good deal about the necessity for subsidy. I am reasonably proud, though not too much, I hope, of having operated an airline for 12 years, with a subsidy for a period of only nine months. I must tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I look forward to rebirth. I shall do my best to enter the arena again in which I am most keenly interested. I must apologise, like King Charles, for being "such an unconscionable time a'dying."

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: But not in the loss of the head.

Mr. Gandar Dower: Of course, death is often dull to onlookers, especially to those who are anticipating a rich inheritance, free from all death duties, and with the seat warm to occupy, money to squander, and several thousand pounds of advance bookings.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Medland: In passing one or two remarks on this Bill, I want to say with what interest I have viewed the development of the Parliamentary Secretary during the passage of this Bill upstairs and down here, and the success he has been making of his job. I hope that at the end of this day he will feel gratified that he has, at last, put a nationalised air service on the map, so far as this country is concerned. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Douglas Marshall) did his stuff from his point of view, but I want to remind him that this Bill will make it possible for him to use a plane from his constituency in the South West to the rest of the British Isles for the first time in history, and that that is an accomplishment.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I am perfectly convinced that had the railways been allowed after the war to develop air services, that would similarly have been possible, and that I should have been able to take an aeroplane from the West of England to any part of the country.

Mr. Medland: I am quite sure that the railways would never have developed airlines from the South West of England, either to London or anywhere else, I have had some experience of their operations in our part of the country. We have heard a lot about Scotland, but there is a region called the South West of England, and I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's efforts on our behalf, at any rate.
I should like, however, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question, and have the answer, for the purpose of the record. I do not know if the Paymaster-General is going to wind up, but I want to ask a question about pensions. I notice that in Clause 19 there is special provision for staff wages and pensions. Is this Clause to be the model upon which the relationship between the employees and nationalised industry is to be based? If so, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why there should be three separate negotiations with three separate companies at three separate times for what will inevitably be the same kind of man? Will the engineer who gives certificates for aircraft on an airport, working for one corporation and then another on the same airfield, have to have three separate negotiations with three separate corporations? Will the Parliamentary Secretary say who is to coordinate the work of these corporations and the working conditions in them?
It is laid down in Clause 19 (2) that it any agreement is made, it must be reported to the Minister of Labour. What is the use of reporting an agreement to the Minister of Labour, unless the agreement is coordinated with the other corporations. Who is the coordinating body? Is it to be the Minister? Are the men employed by these corporations to be regarded as civil servants, because in the next Clause it is laid down that the corporation shall set up a pensions scheme for such classes as the Minister thinks proper? Are all the persons to be incorporated in the scheme, or is anyone to be left out? We have had some experience of this among employees in the Admiralty, where certain sections have been left out of the pensions scheme. I ask the Minister to put on record whether all the employees are to come into the pensions scheme, and whether they are to be regarded as servants of the corporations entitled to pen-


sions wherever they may be. Does the Minister envisage a kind of Whitley Council or working party for the industry? Are the men to be taken into consultation in the development of the industry? I can tell hon. Members opposite that whenever employees in Government service have been kept informed as to what was required of them, and when they knew the demands and all the facts, the spirit with which they entered into the job was quite different from when they were treated as mere hirelings with orders to obey and work to do. I hope the Minister will tell us whether he is to set up a working party, and whether the employees will be consulted, because these things are being done in other branches of Government service, and for him to fall behind at this stage would be a great tragedy.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: It is not my intention to speak at any length on this most important Bill, but, having sat assiduously through the Committee stage of the Bill, I feel that I am in a position to say a word at this last stage of its passage through this House. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on the way in which the Bill has been handled and—although I have not always agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary, or with the Government, for that matter—it may be said, with great confidence and without misunderstanding, that we have reserved to ourselves more individualism than the Conservatives or Liberals on the other side of the House would give us credit for. We are not robots, who just do blindly what we are expected to do by the Government. Our party gives us the maximum freedom, and we are proud of that. We have had our differences in Committee, and while we have failed in some ways to convince the Government, we are all united in our praise of the method with which the Parliamentary Secretary has handled this difficult subject.
As a young Member, I am particularly proud that, once again, the party to which I have the honour to belong is honouring the pledges given at the General Election, when we said that it was the intention of the Government to coordinate transport under a system of public ownership. I do not share the apprehensions of hon. Members opposite that this is necessarily

the death-knell of all progress and enterprise in civil aviation. I am glad that, in this birth of a new infant in the transport world, the Socialist Government of this country have now the power to ensure that this great and vital service is used in the best interests of the community. Indeed, 1 should lament such a potent and vital weapon being left in the hands of any private monopoly, for who can say what our position would be in the event of the unfortunate catastrophe of war, if we failed to use the opportunity to build up a great air fleet which would seek to defend this country, if needs be, in the times that lie ahead. I like to think in more pacific terms, and to believe that now we have, or, at least, will have, a socialised civil aviation in this country, which will mean cheap service for the common people of the country, so that we may go abroad to see our comrades in other lands, and so that greater understanding may result. I believe that by the socialisation of civil transport we shall have the cheapest, safest and most efficient air transport system in the world.
There are some things about the Bill which I would not have introduced had I been responsible. I cannot see the necessity for three separate corporations. I can see the argument of maintaining, so far as possible, the merits—and there are some—of private enterprise, but I cannot see the virtues of part-time boards. I would like to have had full-time boards. I console myself with the thought that, whatever is done under this Bill, and whatever the results may be in the immediate future, the whole position is empirical, and we shall have to adjust the machine as time goes on. What I would desire is a flexible kind of organisation, which would lend itself to the new circumstances that may arise in the future. I am glad that so early on, we have had an opportunity to take social control, because I believe that, by so doing, we can obviate many of the mistakes which we have inherited, and which confront us today in relation to the old transport industries.
I hope that we may have the benefit of the services of young men in this industry. I am alarmed to find that so many of the people already appointed, and who have been named, are so aged. I myself would have regarded it as a young man's industry. I would have


thought that after the great experience which the war provided in training and in administration that we should have had ample young men at our service, who should have filled even the executive posts. I believe it will be the intention of the Government as time goes on to give these young men a chance. Under Clause 19 the opportunity is given to look after staff interests and welfare in the undertaking, and I believe, if the Government make it possible for the young men and women engaged in the industry, to have a full share in the life and well being of this new industry we shall make a great success of it. I will conclude on the note on which I began—congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government on the Measure now before us.

9.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): It now falls to me to say a few words of farewell to this Bill before it is committed to the tender mercies of another place. It has shown the workings of Parliament very well. The Government can feel satisfied in that the main lines of the Bill have not been altered, but I readily admit that we have had several improvements in the previous stages, for which we are grateful to hon. Gentlemen, especially in the very complex Part II of the Bill. It would not he possible for me to answer many of the points that have been raised in Debate, but there are one or two that I ought to answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper), who, like Pilate, does not stay for an answer, has alleged that at a certain date there were 300 members of the staff of B.O A.C. with salaries of £1,000 a year. The figure which should have been quoted was 89 members with a salary of£750 or more, which I submit is far from excessive for a corporation of 21,000 persons. That statement is on the same level of reckless inaccuracy as the one he made the other day that Major McCrindle had written a certain letter; at that time Major McCrindle was in Bermuda. The hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) asked me several questions about pensions and negotiations with staff. As far as negotiations with the staff are concerned it is our policy, of course, that they should be left with the employers—the corporations—and the

trades unions concerned. It should be a matter for direct negotiations between them, but we share his views about the value of the Whitley Council machinery and in our own Department we use it.

Mr. Medland: Is the hon. Gentleman going to use it in this one?

Mr. Thomas: It is our intention that provision shall be made for pensions for everyone. There need not be three separate sets of negotiations, because on many matters the three chairmen will meet in consultation. They do, in fact, have routine meetings now and this is obviously a matter on which they will wish to consult together. The hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) asked about the development of the ancillary services, particularly hotels. We shall claim the same liberty for public corporations as privately owned railways enjoy. Hotels are an essential part of the undertaking, and we do not intend to go into this in any small way.
What is the Bill we are now sending to another place? The heart of Part I is in Clause 23, which reserves regular scheduled services to three public corporations, but outside that reserve there is a free footing for everybody who cares to enter it. Many fears have been entertained by hon. Members opposite about the charter operators. I can say quite emphatically that genuine charter operators have nothing to fear. The law is a terror to evil works but not to good. For the person who deliberately tries to break the law heavy penalties are laid down. But if anybody is in doubt let him go to a good lawyer for advice, or come to my Ministry. The genuine charter operator has a wide field before him, and we wish him luck in it.
The regular scheduled services are reserved to the public corporations. We have not followed, in our schemes of socialisation, any rigid uniformity, such as Members opposite would seem to desire us to follow on some occasions. The distinctive feature of this Measure of nationalisation is that instead of having one corporation we have three. That has been attacked from both sides of the House, but I believe it is a most valuable provision, and I think we shall see, between these three corporations, what our Russian friends call, "Socialist at


emulation." Already we have seen the advantages from this policy. It is not one which I should advocate for all industries, but for this new industry this policy of having three separate corporations is one which will pay very handsome dividends. The small extra sum, if there is any, which may be involved in headquarters expenses will be more than offset by the benefits that will be gained.
What are the features of the three public corporations which are being set up? In the first place, they will be publicly owned, in the sense that there will be no ordinary stock giving control over them. The capital will be provided in the form of loan stock, with no control. Hitherto, in the case of the British Overseas Airways Corporation, it has been provided by the National Debt Commissioners. In the future it would be open to the corporations, under arrangements made with the Treasury, to get stock by issue direct to the public. What method will be followed will depend on the circumstances at the time that capital is needed. The second feature is that these corporations will be publicly controlled. I mean that the Minister will appoint the boards and that he will have certain reserve powers of control. They have been attacked, but I suggest that they are rather like the headmaster's cane.
Most headmasters keep their cane in the cupboard; they do not brandish it all the time. So will the Minister's powers normally be kept in the cupboard. The corporations will be publicly controlled, because the Minister is ultimately responsible, and can be questioned in Parliament for their success or failure, as should be the case in a Parliamentary democracy. But, in their day to day operations, the corporations will be free. It is my noble Friend's strongly expressed desire that the corporations should have independence in day to day management. They must be run as commercial undertakings, and we dismiss suggestions which have been made from the opposite side of the House, that they will be run from Whitehall. I have the highest respect for civil servants, but they would be the first to admit that their training does not qualify them for this very different work.
The corporations will be commercial undertakings in certain respects, which I will specify. They will have, in the first

place, freedom to select their own staff, as we have decided after Debate. Next, they will have freedom of commercial bookings, and as an earnest of our intentions in that respect I should like to announce that the London Air Priorities Board are reducing priorities as quickly as they possibly can all over the field. The latest step we have taken is to abolish priorities on the South American service, with effect from 15th August. By that time there will be capacity on the route equal to the demand, and we can, with safety, from that date release priority control entirely. On the Constellation services to New York, we are taking only 24 seats for priority passengers, and that number will not be increased as the Constellation services increase in number. That is the second freedom of commercial operations—the freedom of commercial bookings.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Twenty-four per what?

Mr. Thomas: Per week. The third freedom which the corporations must have is that of direct contact with the manufacturers, a point on which many hon. Members have rightly laid great emphasis. The Ministry of Supply play a most helpful part in the aircraft supply programme at the present time. Anyone who has any inner knowledge of the system would certainly not belittle what they do in allocating aircraft fairly between the different demands; but it is most important, as hon. Members have insisted, that the user should be brought into direct contact with the manufacturer, and we shall see that that is done. As there has been some misunderstanding, I should like to say that I have never known a single case in which the operators have expressed a firm desire to have any given aircraft in which that desire has not been met.
The second part of the Bill deals with the nationalisation of aerodromes. This has been a highly complex subject, and perhaps I may draw attention to some of the essential features of the Bill as it now leaves the House. It involves, in the first place, the compulsory acquisition of land. It involves, secondly, the acquisition of rights over neighbouring land for such purposes as installing lights and radar beacons. It involves, thirdly, powers for the Ministry of Transport to


stop or divert highways in the neighbourhood of aerodromes. It involves, fourthly, rights of control over land in the neighbourhood of aerodromes in order that aircraft may be navigated with safety. This has been a very elaborate part of the Bill to draft, but I think it is now a thoroughly satisfactory Measure. As far as the procedure is concerned, it will he the procedure laid down for the public acquisition of land in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1945. We do not innovate in this matter. That must be my answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough—that local authorities are not placed in any disadvantageous position by Clause 26, because their land and their aerodromes will be acquired from them on exactly the same terms as those on which they themselves acquire land from private persons. The same procedure will be used.

Mr. Cooper: This point is of considerable importance, and I would like to clear it up. My hon. Friend says that the local authorities will not lose, because their land and aerodromes will be taken over on the same basis as they are taken over from private individuals. The point I made was that they will lose because this Bill has come into being.

Mr. Thomas: I said that the Ministry of Civil Aviation will acquire aerodromes from local authorities on the same terms as the local authorities acquire land from private owners. They will do so on the same basis as is laid down in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act. Compensation is not mentioned specifically in the Clauses dealing with acquisition because we are accepting the same basis for compensation in respect of land as is laid down in other enactments. It will be found in the Lands Clauses Acts, the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. It means that for the acquisition or diminution of value in land we shall pay at 1939 values, with the appropriate supplement where there is a supplement due. For the disturbance of enjoyment, there will be payment at current values, and for the expense of carrying out any directions under the Measure there will be a payment of the actual cost of so doing.
These are the two main part of the Bill. I hardly need to go into the other details where we have to make meticulous provisions for births and deaths in aircraft and so on. This Measure is a 10-year plan in civil aviation; the financial Clauses look towards a period of lo years, and as it happens that is the period for which we have to plan in the designing of aircraft. British civil aviation is already a great British enterprise. As in every war we always begin with a withdrawal in this country, so in civil aviation we have been told that we have no aircraft, no aerodromes; the one thing winch has been admitted is that we have a policy, although no one on the other side of the House seems to like it. We are having all these charges made against us just as Great Britain has in every critical moment in her history until I one day the critics will wake up and say, "Those British have done it again."
Hon. Gentlemen have quoted the American operators so much against us that I cannot refrain from telling the House what Mr. Trippe, the head of Pan-American Airways, said when he was in this country a little while ago. He said that he would like to congratulate the-Civil Aviation Ministry on its fine effort at short notice in getting Heathrow operational, and the aggressive manner in which it had tackled the problem. He thought that there would be keen competition in world commercial aviation and he looked forward to the B.O.A.C. giving its usual fine service. He concluded by saying, "We shall have to get up very early in the morning to keep our place in the sun when the B.O.A.C. gets moving." This is the plan which the Government invites the House to approve for its civil aviation. I believe that it opens up a bright future for British civil aviation, and that our public corporations will prove equal to any other undertakings in the world and will open the way towards that internationalisation of civil aviation which we so much desire to see.

Sir W. Wakefield: Before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down will he clarify the point he made that the corporations will be able to have direct contact with the manufacturers? Does that mean that they can buy their aircraft from whatever manufacturer they please without reference to the Minister, or to the Treasury?

Mr. Thomas: Not without reference. I was making the point that there is such direct access at the present time and that when the corporations expressed a strong wish 1 have never yet known it overruled.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must remind the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary that the last person who is known publicly to have quoted something very friendly and complimentary that Mr. Trippe had said to him after negotiations for opening up an air route to South America added, "It was only when I got to the door, with his compliments still ringing in my ears, that I found he had even taken the shirt off my back." We very much hope that the same kind of thing will not be experienced here. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that this Bill will now go to another place, and I hope the Government will listen, through the medium of their Minister of Civil Aviation there, to any advice they may receive in that other place which is, on this subject, almost more than on any other, qualified to express a valuable opinion. It contains three Air Chief Marshals, of whom two have only just been ennobled for service in this war; it contains at least five former Secretaries of State for Air and Ministers of Civil Aviation; it contains the Chairman of the Brabazon Committee, which is working out all the types on which the Government are now relying; and it contains the Chairman of the B.O.A.C., the

premier Government corporation. So that it is surely entitled to express an opinion.

The Measure will go to another place, but before we part with it, possibly temporarily, I should like on behalf of the Opposition to join with those who have wished Godspeed to those who will make and design our British planes, to those who will fly them, to those who will organise the routes that will be flown, certainly to the hon. Gentleman's own Department and in particular to that preeminent Permanent Secretary whose war work many of us knew at firsthand and immensely admired. Again, and not least, I extend those sentiments to those charter operators and private flyers who, we believe, will play a great part in the future of British aviation; in fact, to all who can help to make our name respected and admired in the world.

We thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the courtesy that he has shown on the Floor of the House, for his constant readiness to give way and answer our questions, and for the courtesy which he showed in the Committee upstairs. But courtesy is not enough. We believe this to be a thoroughly bad Bill and we have no option but to register that feeling in the Division Lobbies.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 91.

Division No. 246.]
AYES.
[9.56 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Allighan, Garry
Burden, T. W.
Deer, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Burke, W. A.
Delargy, Captain H. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Diamond, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Byers Lt.-Col. F.
Debbie, W.


Attewell, H. C
Callaghan, James
Donovan, T.


Austin, H. L.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J.
Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)


Ayles, W. H.
Clitherow, Dr. R
Dumpleton, C. W.


Ayrlon Gould, Mrs. B.
Cluse, W S.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Cobb, F. A
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.


Baird, Capt. J.
Cocks, F. S.
Edelman, M.


Balfour, A.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Barstow, P. G
Collick, P.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Barton, C.
Collins, V. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Battley, J. R
Comyns, Dr. L,
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bechervaise, A E.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G,
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Benson, G.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Fairhurst, F.


Bing, G. H. C
Corlett, Dr. J.
Farthing, W. J.


Binns, J.
Crossman, R. H S.
Foot, M. M.


Blackburn, A R.
Daggar, G.
Fraser, T (Hamilton)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Daines, P
Freeman, Peter (Newport)




Gallacher, W.
McKinlay, A. S.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McLeavy, F.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacMillan, M. K, (Western Isles)
Shurmer, P.


Gibbins, J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Simmons, C. J.


Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W, H.
Skeffington, A. M.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Manning, Mrs, L. (Epping)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Mathers, G.
Snow, Capt. J, W.


Grey, C. F.
Mayhew, C. P.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medland, H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.
Stamford, W.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Swingler, S.


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Guy, W. H.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hardy, E. A.
Morley, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Harrison, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham E.)
Tiffany, S.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mort, D. L.
Titterington, M. F.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.
Tolley, L.


Hicks, G.
Murray, J. D.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hobson, C. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Holman, P.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Viant, S. P.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Walkden, E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oliver, G. H.
Walker, G. H.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Irving, W. J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Warbey, W. N.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Weitzman, D.


Janner, B.
Parker, J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jones, O. T. (Hartlepools)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pearson, A.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Keenan, W.
Perrins, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, C.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen


Key, C. W.
Porter, C. (Leeds)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


King, E. M.
Pritt, D. N.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Kinley, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Kirby, B. V.
Randall, H. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lang, G.
Ranger, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lavers, S.
Rees.Williams, D. R
Williamson, T.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reeves, J.
Willis, E.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wilson, J. H.


Levy, B. W.
Rhodes, H.
Woods, G. S.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Richards, R.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Yates, V. F.


Lindgren, G. S.
Robens, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lyne, A. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McAdam, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Zilliacus, K.


McAllister, G.
Scollan, T.



McEntee, V. La T.
Scott-Elliot, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


McGhee, H. G.
Segal, Dr. S.
Mr. Collindridge and


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Captain Michael Stewart.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.





NOES.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Drewe, C.
Linstead, H. N.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R,
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Boles, LI.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Boothby, R.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bossom, A. C
Gammans, L. D.
Maclay, Hon. J S.


Bower, N.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumtries)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Marples, A. E.


Challen, C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Marshall, D. (Budmin)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Maude, J. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hurd, A.
Mellor, Sir J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Dower, Li.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Langford-Holt, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)


Dower, E L. G. (Caithness)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Nicholson, G.







Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Walker-Smith, D.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smithers, Sir W.
Watt, Sir G. S. Haruie


Pitman, I. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Poole, O. B. S. (Oswetry)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Prescott, Stanley
Sutcliffe, H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Price-While, Lt. Col. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
York, C.


Renton, D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddt'n, SO
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
reeling, William



Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Ropner, Col. L.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F
Mr. Studholme and


Sanderson, Sir F.
Vane, W. M. T.
Major Conant.


Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.



Question put, and agreed to

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CABLE AND WIRELESS BILL

As amended (in the Select Committee and on recommittal), considered.

10.7 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Quite briefly, as I think the House knows, the purpose of this Measure is a simple one. It is to transfer to the Treasury the balance of the Cable and Wireless operating company shares, and compensation is to be paid to the companies who now hold the shares by the issue of Government stock. Broadly, the Bill does nothing more than acquire the shares. It makes no attempt to lay down the method which shall be adopted in the future for running this Company and the overseas telecommunications services. That is now under consideration by the Government and, in due time, an announcement will be made. The Government will, however, take into full consideration the expressions of opinion that have been made during the passage of this Bill through its various stages when they come to make up their mind.
The reason why this Measure is necessary now is, first, that it is essential as part of the process of this country's implementation of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference which was held in London in 1945, and which was accepted by the whole of the Dominions members of the Commonwealth. Secondly, it is essential now, in order to implement and to give effect to the agreement reached at Bermuda, to which this country was a party. The operating company refused to implement the rate reductions which were agreed at that Conference unless the Government indemnified it against any possible loss, and under Clause 5 of

the Bill the Government have undertaken to indemnify it against any possible loss up to the appointed day. However, as a permanent arrangement it was felt that such a guarantee to a privately owned company would have been intolerable, and for that reason—as well, of course, for others—it was decided to take over the shares now.
In passing, I would like to say that the Government do not for one moment accept the figures given by the Company as its estimate of the loss which it will sustain as a result of the alterations in the rates agreed to at Bermuda. The Company in estimating the loss that will flow from the change in those rates, apparently makes no allowance for the fact that in itself a reduced rate is likely to draw increased traffic, and it also forgets, in the view of the Government, the long-term benefits which should accrue to the limitations which that agreement lays down of the use of the direct wireless circuit.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Might I ask the Financial Secretary what is the Government estimate of the loss involved?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course it is impossible to say what the loss will he. What we have to remember is that the revenue accruing during the war must obviously have been something more than the likely revenue that will accrue in the early postwar years. I do not want to labour this, because I do not desire to speak too long in moving the Third Reading, but, whilst we are willing to guarantee the loss up to the appointed day, it is our view that the loss the company now estimates will accrue will he nothing like the figure of £2,500,000. I say no more about that, but leave the matter there——

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the Financial Secretary expresses the view that the company's estimate of the


prospective loss is wrong, it means that he must have formed a view of what the loss will be. Will he tell the House the view of the Government?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I said earlier, it is impossible to say what it will be. But, if the hon. and learned Member wants my guess, I think it will be less than half the figure the company estimates.
Such criticisms as have been levelled against the Bill during its Committee stage, have been concentrated almost entirely in two directions. One is the position of the staff when the Bill becomes law, and the other is the attitude of the Dominions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt very fully on more than one occasion with the position of the staff. I think the House will agree that he has given the fullest guarantees.
All I need do at this stage is to indicate to the House the latest position in regard to the Dominions. One of the main criticisms from the other side of the House was that the shares should not be acquired finally until the Dominions, who are a party with ourselves to the 1945 Agreement, have initiated legislation, or at least taken some steps towards implementing their side of the undertaking. We took the view in discussions during the Committee stage that this country should take the lead in this matter, and should not wait for the Dominions. We also indicated that we had every reason to believe that the Dominions would honour their signature, and that any other view was a gross reflection on the integrity of our sister countries in the Commonwealth. I can now let the House know the situation. Since this Bill passed through Committee, the Australian Government have introduced legislation in the Commonwealth House of Representatives and I hope that in due course that legislation will reach the Statute Book. We understand that New Zealand is in process of preparing legislation for introduction into its Assembly. As I said on the Committee stage, no legislation is required in India, but the Indian Government have given the company notice of their intention to exercise their option to purchase the company's undertaking, and the purchase will go through in due course.
I am sure hon. and right hon. Members opposite will be very interested to hear the situation in South Africa. We are

informed—and we have up-to-date information—that it is intended to bring the South African organisation under public ownership. The form has not yet been decided, any more than it has been decided here, but such legislation as may be necessary will be introduced next Session.
In Canada, the acting Prime Minister stated recently in the House of Commons that the Canadian Government had indicated their willingness to nationalise their external telecommunication services. I can now add, from messages which we have quite recently received, that legislation in Canada is contemplated after the negotiations, which are now going on between the United Kingdom Government and Cable and Wireless, have been completed.
I have not the slightest doubt that this information will allay the fears and anxieties of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who probably quite sincerely thought that this change had been forced by this country, or by this country in association with Australia, on our sister Dominions. I think that the facts as I have given them will dispose of that view. I hope, therefore, that now that it is certain that all the Dominions within the Commonwealth march with the Mother County in this matter, we shall he allowed to have the Third Reading of this Bill.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I do not propose to ask my hon. Friends on this side to divide against this Bill. I want to make it perfectly clear that we are taking this action in the interests of Imperial unity in the matter of Imperial communications.—[Laughter.] I do not see that it is very funny. I have no doubt that I shall be able to make some jokes later, but this is not one. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with the extraordinary skill which he always displays, stated the Opposition case, of course, as it was not—an old dodge—and then proceeded to knock it down. Our position is perfectly clear. We are not dividing against this Bill, which we think is a had Bill, and is very distasteful to us, and we are taking that course in the interests of Imperial unity.—[Laughter.] Again the Chancellor seems to be much amused. He will not be so much amused when he finds that the whole scheme on which this Bill has been framed proves to be unworkable, as it undoubtedly will. I


make a prophecy—I do not make many—that we shall see more legislation in this matter, when the present scheme is found to be entirely unworkable.
We on this side of the House very much deprecate legislation which aims first at purchasing shares, and considering afterwards what is to be done with the business, when the Government have got it. We hope that in this case, once the shares have been acquired, and the Dominions have taken the necessary action, some workable arrangement will be evolved. We do not consider however that the House has been fairly treated in having presented to it a Bill which acquires the shares, but leaves completely in the dark, how the business, when acquired, is to be managed. We do not consider that Clause 4 of the present Bill goes nearly far enough. It still leaves much too much for negotiation between the Treasury and the company on staff pensions and other matters concerning a large section of the cable company. I say that we do not think it goes far enough, because our experience is that the Government are extremely bad employers. I think my views upon this matter were shared by the Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given assurances that salaries, wages and conditions of employment will be protected. That is not in the Bill and therefore 1 cannot dilate upon the subject. I confine myself to the remark that Clause 4 is inadequate to deal with the problems which will arise over the employment of the staff.
I repeat that we think the Bill is a very bad one. We do not divide against it because it is our belief that, whatever modifications may be required subsequently, at this moment Imperial unity in the matter of cable and wireless communications can best be served by not emphasising the manifold defects in the Bill. I conclude by expressing the hope that some wise administrative measure"; may be taken which will mitigate the effects of a piece of hastily improvised and ill-thought-out legislation.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: As an earnest and humble student of the legislative processes of this House, I must confess that the progress of this Bill has been extraordinarily interesting. The Second

Reading Debate, which I studied very carefully in HANSARD, really discloses very few arguments for the nationalisation of this company. There were many remarks which were far from fair to the management of the company. What is really interesting is that being a hybrid Bill we have available the special Report of the Select Committee on the Cable and Wireless Bill. I hope hon. Members will examine that document. I recommend it particularly to those who like a thriller. It is a most astonishing document and I think one must congratulate the Members of this House who formed part of that Committee, and particularly the Chairman, for doing an exceedingly able job.
I do not think that the things which the Committee disclosed were those which came out on the Second Reading. I must say to those who like thrillers that if they go through this document carefully they will find confusion, mystery, search for obscure motives, veiled hints about diplomacy and strategy, and even an innocent country cousin turning up, I am afraid in the guise of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Hon. Members who go through the document will also find there is a feeling of intrigue——

Mr. Donovan: Would the hon. Member make it clear that he is referring not to the Report of the Select Committee but to the evidence which was given before it?

Mr. Maclay: Certainly, but the Report includes the record of the evidence. It is a verbatim report similar to HANSARD, Hon. Members can get the document from the Vote Office and see for themselves. A most extraordinary thing about this inquiry is that feeling throughout that there is a mystery man lurking somewhere in the background, and in the last few pages there is an extremely good climax, but I must not detract from the credit of the authors by giving it away_ Hon. Members ought to read it for themselves. Many things emerge from the Report, the most important being that there has been something seriously wrong for a good many years in the relationship between Cable and Wireless and the Dominions. It becomes increasingly clear as one studies the Report that the breach of relations between Cable and Wireless and the Dominion Governments is by no means the fault of the company.
If I might remind hon. Members of the structure of this company, it has, since 1928, partaken of the nature of a public utility company of some kind. In addition to the Board, which has two Government approved directors, there is a committee called the Imperial Communications Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of each Dominion Government, plus one representative from the Colonies and one from the United Kingdom. The purpose of that Committee is to watch the interests of the Dominion Governments in everything to do with cables and wireless. Theoretically, the whole scheme seems exceedingly good and might well work. I just want to touch on one main point which will make it clear that, in fact, latterly it did not function well, not because of its own nature, but because of other things involved. First, there was the quite remarkable position assumed by the chairman, not of Cable and Wireless Ltd., but of the Imperial Communications Advisory Committee. The chairman of this Advisory Committee was also the representative on that Committee of the Government of the United Kingdom. At one time or another, he also represented Canada and Australia, and, what is more, he was for a considerable period receiving a payment of £1,500 a year from Cable and Wireless, Ltd., with the full knowledge of the Treasury, to act as liaison officer between Cable and Wireless, Ltd., and the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker: The composition of the Committee is quite outside the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Maclay: I am trying to build up a case in defence of the company on the charges made against it on Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: If charges were made against it on Second Reading, we have nothing to do with them on Third Reading. We are dealing with what is in the Bill, and not with what may have been said on Second Reading, in Committee or on the Report stage.

Mr. Maclay: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite certain if I may now go on, because I was trying to argue whether the Third Reading of the Bill was justified, because of extra evidence received since the Second Reading. I hope I am in Order in touching very briefly on other points

brought forward as an excuse for going through with this Bill, and they certainly arise out of the Bill itself. It is necessary to see what is happening. It has been argued that, apart from the question of Dominion relationships, there are strategic considerations, but we must remember that, if there are strategic considerations for nationalising Cable and Wireless, Ltd., during the whole of the war it was found possible to have Cable and Wireless, Ltd., carrying on this vital work without being taken over by the Government, and it is impossible to find out what new considerations have arisen to change all that.
Then, there is a lot of talk about diplomatic considerations, but we must not forget that there are grave diplomatic dangers for a Government in taking over a cable and wireless organisation which has to pass through foreign countries. It is surely very difficult for a Government to take over a private company with foreign establishments; it must be much easier for a private company to operate its business with those establishments in foreign countries. Hon. Members opposite will find this difficulty with every one of the State ownership enterprises which touches foreign trading.
Then as regards the implementation of the Bermuda Agreement, I think the Chancellor indicated, and I think it has been suggested this evening, that Cable and Wireless, Ltd., showed resistance to the reduction of rates. That is true, so far as the Bermuda Agreement is concerned. I think that the Chancellor will agree that the past history of Cable and Wireless, Ltd., has shown a steady, progressive attitude towards reduction of rates, and that, had they been left to themselves, that reduction would have gone on. Resistance to the Bermuda Agreement was because they had not been fully consulted, and they did not believe that the rate reductions proposed would leave a working profit with which to carry on.
That brings me to my final point that one of the main arguments for this Bill is that one cannot pay money from the Government to make up the loss of a private company. I am prepared to be accused of being reactionary, when I say that that is a fantastic point of view. In point of fact I am quite convinced that I am 25 years ahead of the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite and that in due course hon. Members on


the Government benches will find that State ownership is the last possible thing that will improve any industry. If that industry reaches the stage of monopoly that makes it necessary for some sort of control to be imposed—and I quite agree that Cable and Wireless had reached that stage—then there are other means of exercising that supervision far short of taking over financial control. I have had the privilege of working for five years as a temporary civil servant. I have the highest possible regard for civil servants. I also have the highest regard for the system. If, however, there is one thing that one learns when one is working as a civil servant it is that that system can never be made suitable for running any enterprise which has to provide a service to the public, which requires initiative, which requires enterprise. Hon. Members opposite have often said with regard to this argument, "Oh well, we will change the system." I can only wish that some of them would work as temporary civil servants for a time; they also would come to have the highest regard for the service, but they would also learn its limitations. It is useless to argue, as was done earlier this evening, that the operating boards will be free of bureaucratic interference; in every case the overriding consideration is that it is this House of Commons that is responsible for the financial control of such public utilty companies. The Minister must answer questions in this House. From this inevitably spring the evils and inefficiencies of bureaucracy. I hope, Mr. Speaker, I am not transgressing too far with regard to this Third Reading Debate, and I will not develop that argument further.
May I in conclusion return to the question of the Dominions, and to the point I made earlier? I do not think that anything on this earth could in existing conditions have made the relations between Cable and Wireless and the Dominions really satisfactory. The working of the Advisory Committee had for whatever reasons got into a very curious condition, but if the company had been in direct contact with the Dominion Governments there is good reason to believe that these difficulties would never have arisen. One must, however, accept the situation which exists. The Dominions are and have for some years been disturbed at what has been happening. The question is what

should have been done. What I submit is that it would have been perfectly possible for the Government of this country and each of the Dominion Governments to have achieved some other means of control of what was, obviously, a virtual monopoly of vital interest to the whole Commonwealth. It need not have been necessary to nationalise it all. If the Dominions felt so strongly about it they could have nationalised their own ends of it, and such a system would have worked. I do not think any Member of this House would deny that. There was really no need to nationalise it in this country. Today's position, however, is one that has to be accepted, and it is with exceeding reluctance that one realises that there can be no point in voting against this Bill although it is one which one thoroughly dislikes.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I wish to record my astonishment at the statement made by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) to the effect that the party opposite was concerned in this matter, about Imperial unity, because when this subject was last debated, right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite made the suggestion to the Dominions and the Empire that they should back out of this agreement. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) said:
One wonders, being hard-headed people, whether they will adept schemes modelled on this foolish Bill.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1946: Vol. 424, C. 2059.]
The right hon. Member for Aldershot and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) made speeches which were tantamount to an invitation to the Dominions to back out. What could he more disruptive to Empire unity? Yet today they stand before this House and say that in the interests of Empire unity they are not dividing against the Third Reading, though previously they divided the House on a new Clause on this matter. I conclude by say-that we have heard the reaction of the Dominions to this interesting suggestion from the right hon. Member for Aldershot and others. We have heard that several Dominions are introducing legislation to implement the agreement, and I can only add that if the Opposition is going to be


ineffective in its attempts to assault the Government or disrupt Empire unity as it has been on this occasion, if it is going to show such utter fatuousness. I say "Long may it gleam upon our forward path."

10.36 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I cannot allow this Third Reading of this Bill to go through without making a protest. I have been told that if I vote against this Bill I shall be voting against Empire unity. I do not agree. This Bill presumes to give to the Empire and Commonwealth a cable and wireless service. If the Empire wants an efficient cable and wireless service, the present company, which has never been accused of inefficiency, ought to be left to carry on because it will provide a better cable and wireless service for the Empire than can be provided under the dead hand of State control. I cannot understand how it is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who speaks for the party on this side of the House, while he describes the Bill as unworkable and distasteful and applies to it several other adjectives which I had not time to put down on paper, yet does not propose to divide the House against it. This Bill, by taking over the shares of the company and gaining control of it, really means that taking wealth is part of the policy of the Government. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to agree with me because I want to ask him this question. What is to stop the Government, when they have got all the real wealth of the country, giving in exchange for it pieces of paper—thus following the example of Germany after the last war—then wiping out the paper? I do not believe that that can be stopped, and I believe that is the intention of the Government. That is why I am opposed to the Bill.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Robens: The Bill makes provision for the present holders of the office of director to vacate their offices on the appointed day, and I rather think that the Chancellor at one time said he thought some members of the present directorate might be persuaded, or invited to go on rendering service under the new authority. I hope that he will look at that point again and examine the position of the present directors. I hope he

will not be too ready to accept any of the present directorate as directors under the new State set-up. The general management of this organisation has been extremely critical of the Government and has tried to sabotage this Bill. Its attitude has been to utilise its economic power over the employees of the company in an endeavour to panic them against this Bill. At the same time, in its own dealings with the staff association, it has deliberately left over a good deal of work which it ought to have done, and left staff problems—and our friends on the Front Opposition Bench appear to be very considerate about staff proplems and employees—to present snags and difficulties to the new administration. There are such matters as that of the temporary and unestablished staff, raised last January. The company promised to deal with that by 1st April. It has done nothing about the matter. It would be very interesting if whoever is to reply will indicate whether the company was precluded, by obligations to the Treasury, from making a settlement with the trade unions concerned on a number of issues.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The point which the hon. Member is raising does not appear to have any relation to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Robens: I am sorry if I have overstepped the mark. But we are dealing with the position of directors who are there to administer the company. I thought that I might have an opportunity of saying something about the directors and what they have to do. However, I shall not develop that point further. But there is undoubtedly among the employees of the Cable and Wireless Company a great interest in this matter. When I was in Bermuda I was surprised to receive a telephone message from the Cable and Wireless office. It was because of the fact that they had read the HANSARD reports, and were interested in meeting someone who had taken part in the previous Debate, and they wanted to know a good deal more about it. They were perfectly satisfied about the assurance given in relation to their staff position by the Minister in a Labour Government, and I hope the Chancellor will shortly present to us the additional legislation required, and will look carefully into some of the points I have raised.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) seemed rather fearful about the fact that this Bill provided for the acquiring of some of the real wealth of this country in the form of Cable and Wireless. What we are concerned about is the price we are going to pay, and, if the House will bear with me for a brief time, I want to deal with the Clause in the Bill which covers the question of compensation. I want to be assured by the Chancellor, that Clause 2 will be fully implemented, and that all the relevant factors concerned with the assessing of compensation will be taken into account. By that I mean those factors which came out before the Select Committee, and which showed that the future revenue of Cable and Wireless was likely to decline substantially, as was admitted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Those factors should be taker: into account when the tribunal assesses the compensation to be given to the existing shareholders in the form of Government stock. They should include the fact that there was an understanding between the Government on the one hand and the United States on the other, and the Dominions, that the direct circuits for communications which had been established between the U.S.A. and the Empire and Dominion countries during the war were to end after six months. But it came out in the evidence before the Select Committee that it was unlikely that, in any circumstances, these direct circuits would be terminated, and, of course, in actual fact it has turned out to be so.
In the evidence before the Select Committee, one of the managing directors, when asked about the direct circuits, stated that Australia adhered to her decision to have the Australian-U.S.A. circuit continue; New Zealand knew that her circuit would have to be maintained after the war South Africa had not then opened a circuit with the United States, but said it might be necessary to maintain it after the war. The Dominions obtained benefits from the two circuits which eliminated London. They wished them to continue in use after the war. There would have been some agreement as to their continuance whether the Bermuda agreement had been entered into or not I suggest further that the prospective Income of Cable and Wireless

would have shown a considerable decline in any case, had the circuits been eliminated as was originally agreed or not. If the direct circuits continued in operation, the rates would have had to be reduced and the total revenue would have declined. Whether there had been a rate war or not, the revenue would have declined. My contention is that the interpretation of Clause 2 must take into account the fact that the revenue of Cable and Wireless was bound to decline, whether the Bermuda agreement had come into being or not. Another factor which should be taken into account is the political aspect. That is to say——

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it in Order to suggest what factors a tribunal appointed under the provisions of this Bill should take or should not take into account, when they are not referred to in the Bill? Surely the hon. Member is entitled to refer only to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot stop the hon. Member on the Third Reading from discussing the operation of the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Maclay) was stopped by Mr. Speaker from referring to the evidence which had been given before the Select Committee?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not affect what is before the House at the moment.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Surely it is in Order to discuss how the tribunal set up by the Bill is going to work. I ask the Chancellor to tell us how far the tribunal will take into consideration the return on his investment which the willing buyer would expect, rather than assessing the maintainable revenue. What I wish to point out is that under Clause 2, the compensation shall be assessed on the price which a willing buyer will pay any willing seller on the basis of net maintainable purchase. I contend that in view of the position of Cable and Wireless at the end of the war, as it came out before the Select Committee, any willing buyer of Cable and Wireless today would expect a very high return on his investment, and if he was expecting a high return on his investment, therefore, the number of years' purchase of the expectable revenue would result in a comparatively low global sum.


Obviously the higher rate of interest you expect on the capital the less the global sum resulting will be that results from its capitalisation. That should apply in this case. I urge on the Chancellor that when he comes to hand over to the tribunal the assessment of the compensation which has to be given to the shareholders of this company, he should then draw their attention to the relevant factors that should be taken into account. In my view, if they do take all these factors into account, the result will be that the Government of this country will have made a very satisfactory investment.

Mr. Lyttelton: May I ask the hon. Member whether his point is that the net maintainable revenue is the revenue which is maintainable? If so, I am in agreement with him.

Mr. Davies: No. The net maintainable revenue 'is revenue which it is to be expected that the company will earn in the future. In the past, net maintainable revenue has been wrongly interpreted, in my view, as in the case of London Transport. In conclusion I would say that if these relevant factors are taken into account the purchase of Cable and Wireless by the State should result in payment of compensation of a global sum which will place a far less total interest charge on the company than it would have to pay if it had continued on the present basis.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PETROL RATIONING

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

10.52 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I wish tonight to raise the question of petrol rationing, and to endeavour to obtain from the Minister of Fuel and Power some definite assurance which will clear up the misunderstanding and the doubt which exist at the present time in the minds of so many people. It has been almost an impossibility for any Member of this House to obtain any information of any real value from the Minister on the question of petrol rationing. In fact, we have had for some time what I would describe

as "the iron curtain of Westminster," which has made its European counterpart at times almost like a piece of chiffon. What I want to do tonight is to try to get through these difficulties and find out exactly what is happening. I suggest there has been, on the part of many Ministries, a hang-over of security from the war period, which officialdom has found very convenient indeed. The time has come when the public should be given some facts. The information which we have extracted from the Minister of Fuel and Power has been extracted by means almost as physically arduous as mining itself. What I want him to do tonight is to come through clean without any further pressure from His Majesty's Opposition. We have not had any concrete information on the reasons why we 'are still inflicted with a very rigorous petrol rationing.
We have been offered a diversity of reasons, such as the need for military usage, the difficulty of obtaining tyres, the shortage of tankers, the lack of dollars, and the difficulty of refineries handling the volume of spirit that would be necessary. I have no doubt at all that there was some substance in all these observations, but I suggest to the Minister that most of these reasons are now of decreasing importance. If we examine these reasons we find ample justification for a reduction in the present rigorous rate of ration. Let us look at the military requirements. It is true that, as a consequence of pressure applied by His Majesty's Opposition, the Government have demobilised during the year at almost double the rate they had intended to demobilise. Surely, that has made a considerable difference in the original calculations as far as petrol is concerned, and justifies some optimism that a relaxation should come about. In Germany, as an occupied country, for example, eight or nine months ago military units were using more petrol on their work at that time than they had been using during the fullest scale of operations. This, I understand, has been taken in hand, and the requirements in that direction are not as heavy as eight or nine months ago.
The Minister of Fuel and Power has stated that tankers are a problem. I am convinced that at the time he said that, it was true, and tankers had to be diverted from their work in the Far East to another theatre. I believe that this diversion is no longer taking place, and that we can say, with some degree of assurance, that


there is ample tanker space to carry the petrol which we require. The same diminishing value can be put upon the argument concerning tyres. The position of rubber in the Far East certainly exceeded all our most optimistic expectations, and there can be no real difficulty in meeting needs in that direction.
The security which hangs over all these figures makes it difficult for me to say whether the refinery capacity is equal to the needs which would obtain if petrol rationing were relaxed altogether. In view of the fact that refineries no longer have to cater for such an enormous quantity of Too octane petrol as they did during the war, it may reasonably be expected that they would be able to cater for any of our domestic demands. The sixth reason given by the Minister, which is one to which I believe he attached and still attaches a great deal of importance, is the question of providing the necessary fund of dollars. I believe that he maintains the position that, while there is enough petrol in the sterling area to provide this country with all that it needs, it might be necessary to spend dollars to provide petrol for the whole sterling area. That may be so, but have we not been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the tremendous improvement in our exports, and how the whole of the country is surging towards prosperity? Have we not been told that the dollar position is not as doleful as it might be expected to be? I suggest that the Minister of Fuel and Power should try to capture a little of the infectious gaiety and almost boyish enthusiasm of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, at the same time, capture some of his golden dollars for petrol for the hard-pressed people of this country.
I want to deal with one or two classes of people who are in extraordinary need of petrol. People who are invalids—and there are a lot who fall in that category—are at present suffering in health because they cannot get out into the countryside, or to other places, where they can enjoy themselves, because of lack of petrol. Then there are the commercial travellers. I think that under the system of society which the right hon. Gentleman ultimately hopes to establish in this country, the commercial traveller will not perform an economic function, but as the consumers' choice has not yet been

eliminated, they do perform a proper function, and they are a very reputable body of men. They are now facing the position in which competition is about to show its influence again, and if they wish to establish themselves with their customers by personal contact, an extra ration of petrol is a necessity.
I make no bones in saying that the private motorist is entitled to better treatment than that which the Minister of Fuel and Power has handed out to him up to now. The private motorist is entitled to go out and enjoy himself. This country has been through an extremely difficult time, and so have its people, and they are entitled to the pleasure that motoring can give. That pleasure is not confined to the rich. I suggest that the poor man who runs a car gets more pleasure out of it than the rich man, and that; the Minister of Fuel and Power would do well to give this petrol to make a little greater the meagre pleasures of the people at the present time. I am fortified in this demand to abolish petrol rationing by the fact that many countries on the Continent of Europe have already done so. It is, perhaps, not unreasonable to expect that countries like the U.S.A. and Canada should have done so. But we find that of the countries on the Continent, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Holland have abolished rationing and yet, here are we allowed only a miserable ration. It is not remarkable that many people in this country are wondering whether, after all, a Nazi war is not more grievous to bear than a Socialist peace.
I am not pretending that all countries in Europe are free from rationing. Rat may we look for a moment at those countries which have rationing? Let us look at France. The English motorist who goes to France, on arrival, gets 33 gallons—I do not know how long it would take him to get 33 gallons in this country —and he then gets II gallons a week—a very generous state of affairs in a country which is not doing as well as we are, if all the stories which the present Government put out are correct. A traveller from this country who takes his car to Belgium gets 66 gallons a month for a 10 horse-power car—a thing unheard of in Great Britain. So, when we ask that we should receive a more liberal ration, or that the ration be abolished, we are justified on the basis of what is happen-


ing in European countries, because, if those countries which were occupied during the war can do so well, we, surely, can, at least, do something along those lines. I suggest that dollars are available, and that the Debates which we have had in this House during the past week or so indicate that dollars must be available. After all, we are told by right hon. Gentlemen who are colleagues of the Minister of Fuel and Power that they cannot buy the vast stocks of grain from dollar sources which they would wish. We are told that they cannot buy the stocks of oils and fats which they desire. Surely, if that be the case, there must be a reserve of dollars which would have been spent upon other commodities, and which might be diverted to the purchase of petrol. If the pleas which I make tonight to the Minister to abolish rationing altogether, or to give us a much more liberal allocation, fail, and they may do, because the Minister is a very hardhearted man, I would ask that some consideration be given to people who have to go on holiday. I feel that there is nothing whatsoever which prevents the right hon. Gentleman from making a generous gesture towards those people who have to go on holidays, and want to use their cars. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman could do something for that class of the community.
The final reason I urge this course upon the Minister is that there does exist at the present time an admitted black market. There is no disputing that fact. The Minister of Fuel and Power may say, as Ministers always do, "If the hon. Member will give me details, I shall be pleased to look into them," but that is not very satisfactory, because I do not mix extensively in black market circles, and after all, I am not paid as a "snooper" for the Minister of Fuel and Power. It is undeniably true that a black market does exist on a not inconsiderable scale, and one of the ways in which a black market can be removed, and indeed the most effective means by which it can he removed, is by freeing the supply. It is in the matter of freeing the supply that I ask the Minister to do something tonight.

11.2 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) is mistaken in his assumption that I have endeavoured to conceal the facts from the House. It is

true that I have declined to disclose the actual stocks in our possession for reasons of military security, and I stand by that. These reasons may not be appreciated by hon. Members opposite, but we are very concerned about the interests of the country. I hope that may have some impact on the minds of hon. Members opposite. Moreover, it never was customary to disclose the actual stocks of petrol in our possession, and precisely for the reason I have just given. Other than that, I have not refused to disclose the facts that are available. I am as anxious as any hon. Member to dispense with petrol rationing. Over and over again, I have declared myself on that subject. But clearly, in a condition of uncertainty as regards future petrol supplies, it would be a mistake, a blunder, if we dispensed with petrol rationing. We could, of course, dispense with petrol rationing tomorrow on the basis of existing stocks, but it would ill become us if, in the course of the next few months, the position deteriorated, as it might well do.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What position?

Mr. Shinwell: The petrol position, which we are now discussing. I advise the noble Lord not to indulge his imagination too liberally. In an uncertain position, and without an assurance that the position will not deteriorate, it would be a blunder to dispense with petrol rationing at once. We must be assured of future supplies. Any responsible Minister would be bound to take that course. We cannot bank on uncertainties; we must be sure that supplies will be available.
Obviously, as the hon. Member appears to realise, this issue of petrol rationing is associated with the exchange position. That is a matter with which everyone is familiar. It is true that substantial quantities of oil are purchased from British oilfields, and that if we availed ourselves exclusively of the production in the sterling area and were assured of future supplies, no difficulty would emerge. But oil produced in the sterling area cannot be expected to come to this country alone. We have to consider our markets, and those markets are highly vulnerable. If we lost those markets, temporarily, it might be difficult to recapture them, and I am well aware that hon. Members opposite are anxious to retain our export trade.
The hon. Member has stated that the rate of rationing is rigorous in character. But there has been a substantial improvement since the beginning of this year. Undoubtedly, the ration in 1945, following the close of the war, was rigorous in its application, but there has been, on the whole, a substantial improvement. That is reflected in the position of private cars. I will give hon. Members the facts. The number of cars for which basic rations are now being drawn is over 1,600,000. One might suppose, from what has appeared in the newspapers, and from what critics have said, and from what hon. Members opposite have sometimes declared that there were no private cars operating at all.

Mr. Gammans: There is no suggestion of that kind at all.

Mr. Shinwell: As I have said,, the number of cars for which basic rations are being drawn is over 1,600,000, and supplementary allowances are issued in respect of about 900,000 of those cars. Therefore, about 700,000 are drawing the basic ration only.
What is the position about hire cars and taxis? The hon. Member has addressed several questions to me on this subject in the past. There has been a substantial increase in the number of both classes of these vehicles since before the war. The number of private hire cars has increased from about 27,500 to about 39,000, and provincial taxis from 6,500 to 13,000. Increased allowances were authorised in respect of those vehicles when petrol rationing was gradually relaxed last year. The monthly allowance for private hire cars shows an increase of 70 per cent. in May of this year as compared with May, 1945. In all the circumstances this must be regarded as a substantial improvement. I do not think it is adequate or satisfactory, but having regard to the difficulties which we have gone through, I do not think it can be regarded as an unsatisfactory position.
The hon. Member has referred to the tanker position. He has much mare knowledge on this subject than I have, although one might suppose that I should be in possession of the facts. But it is a fact that there is still a substantial shortage in tanker supplies. We lost a great many tankers during the war, as the hon.

Member knows. The hon. Member opposite knows something about the mercantile marine, and is well aware of these facts, and it is difficult to make up the leeway. We have had to rely to a considerable extent on American tanker supplies, and that costs dollars, and is affected by the foreign exchange position. It will take some time—and I cannot say how long—before there is an adequate supply of tankers.
The hon. Member has also used the occasion to ventilate a subject that has received much prominence in the newspapers. I refer to the alleged absence of rationing in foreign countries. The hon. Member was a little subdued on that subject, and I will give him the facts. It is not true to say that there are no restrictions in foreign countries. Rationing still exists in Denmark, France, Belgium, and in Holland rationing was terminated on 1st June, but there is not only in Holland, but also in France and Belgium, a permit system under which the driver has to have a permit to operate his vehicle and he is only issued with that permit if the vehicle is to be used for essential work. There are some foreign countries where there is no rationing of petrol, but supplies in these countries are made almost exclusively by British oil companies, with the approval of the Government, for currency reasons, that is dealing with hard currency countries. Of course, we rely on some of their imports. From Sweden, for instance, we require timber for housing and other constructional activities and so on, and it is very desirable that we should provide them with petrol.
As regards the privileges accorded to the foreign tourists going to France and other foreign countries, I am not quite clear whether the hon. Member is arguing that foreigners coming to this country should be accorded equal treatment——

Mr. W. Shepherd: I merely contrasted how generous was the treatment in this matter by the foreign countries compared with the niggardly treatment in this country.

Mr. Shinwell: I should like to hear the comments of the French public on that matter, but, at any rate, we are not going to follow their example. If we are going to relax the restrictions we are going to do it in order to benefit the British public,


and not foreign tourists coming to this country.
I have not much time left and, therefore, I will do what I can to reassure hon. Members. The matter is under active consideration. I use the formal nomenclature with which the House is familiar, but something very profitable may emerge in consequence. The dollar position may be rectified, although there——

Mr. Gammans: Are we to understand that the American loan is to be used for this purpose?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member has anticipated what I was about to say. It must not be assumed that, if the dollar position is rectified to our advantage—and, at least, we hope that will be so—the immediate result will be the removal of these restrictions. That depends. We may require to use dollars for other purposes. There must be a fair allocation, having regard to the needs of the situation. We may have to consider food supplies instead of petrol supplies, or we may have to consider machinery supplies in order to assist British industry to recover. It is very desirable that we should treat the matter fairly and in proportion to the needs of the country at large, but

the matter will have to be dealt with in its proper perspective.
It may be that I shall have an interesting announcement to make. I cannot say, but I hope I shall be in that position. Following that, it may be necessary
relax the existing restrictions. I am very anxious to assist private motorists, and 1, am particularly anxious to facilitate inland transport for industrial purposes. We are doing everything we can in that connection. As regards commercial travellers, I am sympathetic. We have just received a deputation from the association concerned with commercial travellers, and if it is possible to assist them in that way, we shall certainly do so. I repeat, this is the vital issue—the position is still uncertain, and that is so as regards the existing position internationally. Therefore, I could not possibly afford to advise that the restrictions be removed immediately, although I hope that as soon as the position is clarified, as I trust it will be shortly, I shall be able to satisfy hon. Members and the general public.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes past Eleven o' Clock.